Q17 - No small countries and no

[scheung82]

Can you explain why (E) is the correct answer choice? I was stuck between (C) and (E).

(C) Some countries that have perm seat on the UN --> favor inc. peace --> against inc. spending on refugees.

(E) Each country with a perm seat on the UN council ---> favor inc. peace and greater role in reg. disputes. No country in S.H. have perm seats.

Thanks,
Sandra

[bbirdwell]

Hi Sandra,

The error is in the way you have symbolized (C).

We know from the argument that
some countries w/seats --> favor peacekeeping.

We also know that
some countries favor peacekeeping --> no refugees.

We do not know whether these two groups overlap! For all we know there are 100 countries out there that don't have a seat on the council, yet favor peacekeeping. These could be the only ones who are agains spending on refugees. Do you see that?

Change the direction of the arrow for the first statement, though, and suddenly (C) is correct.
If ALL nations that favor peacekeeping --> seat on the council
and
some that favor peacekeeping --> no refugees...
Now (C) is true -- the ALL and the SOME overlap, and it must be true that some of the nations with seats are against refugees.

Notice now how (E) is correct without changing the argument.

We are given that countries in southern hemisphere --> no seat
Thus we can contrapose that:
have a seat --> not southern hemisphere
We also know that
have a seat --> favor UN role in regional disputes.

(E) says: Some countries in favor of UN role in regional disputes --> not southern hemisphere. Yes! Which countries? Those on the council, from the northern hemisphere!

[jamiejames]

Hi Sandra,

The error is in the way you have symbolized (C).

We know from the argument that
some countries w/seats --> favor peacekeeping.

We also know that
some countries favor peacekeeping --> no refugees.

We do not know whether these two groups overlap! For all we know there are 100 countries out there that don't have a seat on the council, yet favor peacekeeping. These could be the only ones who are agains spending on refugees. Do you see that?

Change the direction of the arrow for the first statement, though, and suddenly (C) is correct.
If ALL nations that favor peacekeeping --> seat on the council
and
some that favor peacekeeping --> no refugees...
Now (C) is true -- the ALL and the SOME overlap, and it must be true that some of the nations with seats are against refugees.

Notice now how (E) is correct without changing the argument.

We are given that countries in southern hemisphere --> no seat
Thus we can contrapose that:
have a seat --> not southern hemisphere
We also know that
have a seat --> favor UN role in regional disputes.

(E) says: Some countries in favor of UN role in regional disputes --> not southern hemisphere. Yes! Which countries? Those on the council, from the northern hemisphere!

when you say "some countries w/seats --> favor peacekeeping." isn't it "all countries w/seats --> favors peacekeeping, because the prompt says "each of the five countries with seat is in favor of increased peacekeeping efforts?

[timmydoeslsat]

I would have simply said:

PS on UN ---> Increased Int PK efforts AND greater role RD

No need to use some or all in this context. If you know that all A's are B's, then say if A, then B.

[bbirdwell]

Right you are, jeastman!

Timmy's comment is accurate, too. You could combine them with an "AND" on the right side:

permanent seat --> increased peace efforts and greater role in regional disputes

[cdjmarmon]

This still confuses me even after reading these posts. The way I see it is:

We have the Security Council with 5 permanent seat members. We know none of the countries on the Security Council are small and none are in the S.H. Also we know none of the small countries and none of the S.H. countries have permanent seats on the council.

Then we learn the all the security council members with permanent seats favor increased international peace and a greater role for the U.N.

We don’t know the feelings of the small countries or S.H. countries toward those issues.

Then we learn: Some countries that are in favor of increased international peace are against increased spending on refugees.

So, since the 5 members are in favor of increased international peace wouldn’t at least one of the 5 have to be the "Some" that is against increased spending on refugees?

[timmydoeslsat]

So, since the 5 members are in favor of increased international peace wouldn’t at least one of the 5 have to be the "Some" that is against increased spending on refugees?

This is the only issue with your post.

It does not have to be the case that the some statement include those with permanent seats on the council.

A country can be in favor of increased int. peacekeeping efforts without being on the council, as you said, we do not know the feeling of the small countries or the countries in the S.H.

We can infer however that the necessary conditions of those with permanent seats...are not small countries nor are they in the S.H.

So we know for a fact that SOME of those with those characteristics are ~Small countries and ~S.H.

[ttunden]

u guys always diagram on these types of questions? i typically just think about them carefully after reading and evaluate the AC. i find that if i diagram frequently on LR i will either get confused or diagram incorrectly thus getting the wrong answer. However, I do diagram often on LG.

[timmydoeslsat]

u guys always diagram on these types of questions? i typically just think about them carefully after reading and evaluate the AC. i find that if i diagram frequently on LR i will either get confused or diagram incorrectly thus getting the wrong answer. However, I do diagram often on LG.

I almost never diagram, but it does make it easier in the attempt to help someone through the problem.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

u guys always diagram on these types of questions?

Thought I'd add my own strategy to the mix. I do diagram on roughly 3-5 questions per section. That doesn't mean that I sketch out a complete solution, but I do represent as much as I need to see the picture clearly and accurately.

[samuelfbaron]

So with this question...

Is there any actual relevance to the statement "firmly against increased spending by refugees" ? Is that just meant to confuse us?

Now that I look at the question again, I understand why E is correct. We know the following:

1) No small countries and no nations in the Southern Hemisphere have a permanent seat
2) All nations on the council are in favor of increased role in moderating disputes

Therefore, some (not all) countries in favor of increased regional peacekeeping efforts are not located in the south, due to the fact that all of the council members (who support this increase) are in the North!

So was the statement about refugees simply a red herring?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

So was the statement about refugees simply a red herring?

Bingo! Not every statement needs to be used in drawing an acceptable inference from the given statements. This is actually quite common on questions that ask you to find what Must be True or what is Most Strongly Supported by the information.