Q17 - People cannot devote themselves

[mcrittell]

I realize that it's an inference question, and as such shouldn't ever match with what's ever given directly in the text. Therefore, I'm not really sure how this question functions. I picked A, which, I think, corresponds with the text.

Perhaps I have it wrong, I have this: resources-->leisure-->devote to study of natural processes

red=negate

[noah]

This is actually an ID the conclusion question. It's a strangely-worded stem.

The conclusion, as is often the case in these questions, is a refutation of someone's idea. Here, the anthropologists state that agriculture started during drought and hunger, butt, the argument conclusion, it actually began when folks were chillaxing with ample food. (C) states this.

(A) is about the premises.

(B) is not about whether there was a drought during the discovery of agriculture. Where's the theoretical stuff coming from?

(D) is out of scope. Knew more?

(E) contradicts the conclusion - and, I guess, is out of scope, since it's not about whether there was a drought and hunger at the time of the discovery.

[mcrittell]

This wasn't a question I didn't get to, so I took Kaplan's word that it was an inference question. Now, after actually reading the question, it's as easy as pie.

[lhermary]

This is actually an ID the conclusion question. It's a strangely-worded stem.

The conclusion, as is often the case in these questions, is a refutation of someone's idea. Here, the anthropologists state that agriculture started during drought and hunger, butt, the argument conclusion, it actually began when folks were chillaxing with ample food. (C) states this.

(A) is about the premises.

(B) is not about whether there was a drought during the discovery of agriculture. Where's the theoretical stuff coming from?

(D) is out of scope. Knew more?

(E) contradicts the conclusion - and, I guess, is out of scope, since it's not about whether there was a drought and hunger at the time of the discovery.

What is the difference on how you attack an inference question vs. and conclusion question such as this one. I automatically wanted to create inferences after I read the first sentence.

Thanks

[shannyn07]

There's something I genuinely don't understand about this stimulus.

Shouldn't "people have leisure when resources are plentiful, not when resources are scarce" be written: R->L

With the second part of that line, I did manage to write: notR->notL
which I ended up using, but does that somehow supercede the first part? Obviously, that's what worked for the answer, but I don't understand why.

Any explanation for the contradictory terms would be really helpful!

[timmydoeslsat]

It tells us that Leisure when RP.

So we know so far that:

Devote Study NP ---> Leisure
Resources Plentiful ---> Leisure

But it also tells us not when resources are scarce. This is really telling us that resources plentiful is necessary for leisure. So this is now a biconditional situation.

Devote Study NP ---> Leisure <---> Resources Plentiful

So this argument, as noah stated above, concludes that those anthropologists are wrong. Our reasoning is above. It wouldnt be possible, with the evidence given, for those people to be right. No way could they have devoted study of NP and had resources be scarce.

[shannyn07]

Your explanation on biconditional helped a lot, thanks so much!

[sweetygurl]

It tells us that Leisure when RP.

So we know so far that:

Devote Study NP ---> Leisure
Resources Plentiful ---> Leisure

But it also tells us not when resources are scarce. This is really telling us that resources plentiful is necessary for leisure. So this is now a biconditional situation.

Devote Study NP ---> Leisure <---> Resources Plentiful

So this argument, as noah stated above, concludes that those anthropologists are wrong. Our reasoning is above. It wouldnt be possible, with the evidence given, for those people to be right. No way could they have devoted study of NP and had resources be scarce.

This exactly what was in my mind after reading the stimulus twice. It is the phrase "People have leisure when resources are plentiful, not when resources are scarce" that threw me off because I wasn't able to draw a formal logic diagram that would fully explain what the statement was saying, but now I know! it is essentially a double arrow.
Thanks for the clarification.

[rnanswjd]

I do not really understand how the first sentence is written as S-> L .. To me, it is L -> S .. Help me!!!!