Q17 - We can be sure that at least

[smiller]

Question Type:
Match the Reasoning

Stimulus Breakdown:
Premises:
1. Some halogen lamps are on display at Furniture Labyrinth (some A are B)
2. on display at Furniture Labyrinth → well crafted (B → C)

Conclusion:
Some halogen lamps are well crafted (some A are C)

Answer Anticipation:
We're looking for an answer choice with this same logical structure, regardless of the grammatical structure or the order of the statements.

Correct Answer:
(B)

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This has a premise mismatch. We're not told that some days this week will have storms (some A are B). We're told that most days this week might have storms. "Most A could be B" is not a match.

(B) This is a match:
Premises:
1. some sonnets are by Melinda;
2. by Melinda → disturbing
Conclusion:
some sonnets are disturbing

(C) This has a premise mismatch. It's similar to (A). We only know that Gianna can have work done by a shop in the city. This doesn't mean that some work done on her car will be done by one of the shops.

(D) This has a premise mismatch. The premises tell us that some minnows live in nearby lakes, and some fish in nearby lakes are healthy. We need to know that all fish in nearby lakes are healthy. A lake could be teeming with healthy fish, and also contain unhealthy fish.

(E) This has a conclusion mismatch. The conclusion of (E) states that all of the cornmeal used at Matteo's is healthful and organic, but the stimulus only states that some halogen lamps are well crafted.

Takeaway/Pattern: Pay attention to logical structure, not grammatical structure, and eliminate answers that contain mismatches.

#officialexplanation

[shiqi0628]

Hi Atlas

i know the conditional structure goes like:
premise:A<--some->B---->C
conclusion: A<--some--->C
but i dont understand why D is not analogous tp the structure.
i dont think its because the all lake is teeming with healthy fish .if all the fish in the lake is healthy then apparently the minnow in the lake is healthy! minnows are fish i think

or if its because teeming with, means healthy fish are abundant in lake but still not necessarily equals all??

i really need enlightment on this seemingly staightforward question..any thoughts??thanks a million in advance!

[janie.love.williams]

I'm actually not sure as to how any of the choices are similar to the reasoning. I didn't want to be stuck on this question for too long, so I just bubbled in an answer, but I'm still not sure how to arrive at the correct choice. Some clarification would be MUCH appreciated!

[rinagoldfield]

On matching questions, I start out by mapping the argument in the stimulus. I try to simplify the argument’s subject matter as I map. Simplifying helps me see the logic more clearly and find a good match in the answer choices. Let’s do that here.

Our premises tells us that:

ALL items at FL are WC
FL has some HL

Therefore:

Some HL are WC

This is a good argument! If everything Harold cooks is delicious, and Harold likes to cook brussels sprouts, then it is possible to prepare brussels sprouts deliciously.

So let’s look for a match in the answer choices.

(A) has a premise mismatch. A CHANCE of storms doesn’t match the ALL items in the original.

(B) looks like a good match:

ALL of Melinda’s work is D.
Melinda writes some X
Therefore some X are D.

Let’s hold onto (B) for now.

(C) also contains a premise mismatch. Gianni CAN leave her car in the city, but we want to match to the ALL in the premise above. "Can" does not equal "all."

(D) again, contains a premise mismatch! Shiqi, you’re onto something with your point about "teeming." "EVERY lake teems with healthy fish" matches in strength to the ALL in the stimulus. But "every lake teems with healthy fish" means "every lake contains healthy fish."

and

EVERY lake contains healthy fish

does not equal

EVERY fish in the lake is healthy

Note the difference. Think about the statement "Every elementary school teems with 7-year-olds." Does this mean that everyone in an elementary school is 7? No.

In terms of (D), we can only know that some minnows are healthy if every fish in the lake is healthy. But we don’t know that. We only know that the lakes have a lot of healthy fish. But maybe all the healthy ones are sea bass, while the minnows are all sickly.

(D) muddles the logic of what we’re looking for in the premise. Eliminate it.

(E) is tempting, since it’s a sound argument. But (E) contains a conclusion mismatch. The conclusion in the stimulus is a claim about halogen lamps in general. (E) stays specific; it doesn’t make any claims about "some" cornmeal on a broader scale.
Put another way, a good match will have a "SOME" in the conclusion.

We're left with (B), the right answer.

Matching questions can take a while, but they don't have to be hard. Remember to make a general map of the original stimulus, and go through a methodical process of elimination to find your match.

[e. chung]

rinagoldfield's explanation is great, but here's a little more detail... I actually figured this one out for myself while trying to post a question. I hope it helps someone:

The stimulus says that
-some halogen lamps are well-crafted
-because halogen lamps from most major manufacturers are on display at FL
-and any item on display at FL is well-crafted

-some
-some
-all

I was thrown on this question because I just honed in on the "halogen lamps from most manufacturers," not realizing that the "most" was so qualified that it didn't mean "most" anymore - it meant "some."

The correct answer, B states that -
At least a few sonnets = some
several different kinds of sonnets = some
everything Melinda writes is disturbing = all things she writes are disturbing

[judaydaday]

rinagoldfield's explanation is great, but here's a little more detail... I actually figured this one out for myself while trying to post a question. I hope it helps someone:

The stimulus says that
-some halogen lamps are well-crafted
-because halogen lamps from most major manufacturers are on display at FL
-and any item on display at FL is well-crafted

-some
-some
-all

I was thrown on this question because I just honed in on the "halogen lamps from most manufacturers," not realizing that the "most" was so qualified that it didn't mean "most" anymore - it meant "some."

The correct answer, B states that -
At least a few sonnets = some
several different kinds of sonnets = some
everything Melinda writes is disturbing = all things she writes are disturbing

What do you mean by "most" was so qualified? I'm still very confused as to how it translates to "some" in formal logic. What am I missing here?

WAIT! Please let me know if I got it.

"Because halogen lamps [HL] from most major manufacturers are on display at Furniture Labyrinth [DFL]..."
This would be: HL -m->DFL
The reversal of this would be DFL some HL.

SO, DFL -> WC and DFL some HL would allow you to infer WC some HL.

When I went through this timed, I translated the stimulus as HL(subscript "mm") -m-> DFL -> WC. This also allows you to draw the HL some WC conclusion. I guess this is where I started having problems since I was trying to parallel the "most" in the premise.

To avoid this in the future, how would you suggest I approach these questions? What did I do wrong?

[rinagoldfield]

Hi Judaydaday,

The “most” in the stimulus is actually irrelevant. It’s just describing the halogen lamps’ place of origin. The key premises here are:

Furniture Lab --> well crafted
Furniture lab shows some halogen lamps.

It does not matter in this case where the halogen lamps were manufactured; it matters that we can conclude that those halogen lamps are well crafted! Which we can conclude, because the first conditional tells us that EVERYTHING at the Furniture Lab is well crafted. Don’t get tripped up on the some-all-most here; this question is mostly testing conditional logic.

[magic.imango]

On matching questions, I start out by mapping the argument in the stimulus. I try to simplify the argument’s subject matter as I map. Simplifying helps me see the logic more clearly and find a good match in the answer choices. Let’s do that here.

Our premises tells us that:

ALL items at FL are WC
FL has some HL

Therefore:

Some HL are WC

This is a good argument! If everything Harold cooks is delicious, and Harold likes to cook brussels sprouts, then it is possible to prepare brussels sprouts deliciously.

So let’s look for a match in the answer choices.

(A) has a premise mismatch. A CHANCE of storms doesn’t match the ALL items in the original.

(B) looks like a good match:

ALL of Melinda’s work is D.
Melinda writes some X
Therefore some X are D.

Let’s hold onto (B) for now.

(C) also contains a premise mismatch. Gianni CAN leave her car in the city, but we want to match to the ALL in the premise above. "Can" does not equal "all."

(D) again, contains a premise mismatch! Shiqi, you’re onto something with your point about "teeming." "EVERY lake teems with healthy fish" matches in strength to the ALL in the stimulus. But "every lake teems with healthy fish" means "every lake contains healthy fish."

and

EVERY lake contains healthy fish

does not equal

EVERY fish in the lake is healthy

Note the difference. Think about the statement "Every elementary school teems with 7-year-olds." Does this mean that everyone in an elementary school is 7? No.

In terms of (D), we can only know that some minnows are healthy if every fish in the lake is healthy. But we don’t know that. We only know that the lakes have a lot of healthy fish. But maybe all the healthy ones are sea bass, while the minnows are all sickly.

(D) muddles the logic of what we’re looking for in the premise. Eliminate it.

(E) is tempting, since it’s a sound argument. But (E) contains a conclusion mismatch. The conclusion in the stimulus is a claim about halogen lamps in general. (E) stays specific; it doesn’t make any claims about "some" cornmeal on a broader scale.
Put another way, a good match will have a "SOME" in the conclusion.

We're left with (B), the right answer.

Matching questions can take a while, but they don't have to be hard. Remember to make a general map of the original stimulus, and go through a methodical process of elimination to find your match.

Can you please explain how: "...because HL from most major manufacturers are on display at FL" translates into: "HL --some--FL"? This is the part that's throwing me off and made this question utterly unbearable.

I'm also struggling to understand the "can" vs. "all" distinction you make for eliminating (C).

[513852276]

"most" here may still be relevant to reasoning process. Since "some" could mean "none"", and if a stimulus says "HL from some major manufactures are on display at FL", it could still contain the possibility that "no HL are on FL", and thus the conclusion could not be established. But the use of "most" guarantees "at least one HL are on FL".

In correct answer B, it uses "several". In dictionary "several" means "a number of people or things that is more than two or three". Hence, it also functions to guarantee "at least one".

Hi Judaydaday,

The “most” in the stimulus is actually irrelevant. It’s just describing the halogen lamps’ place of origin. The key premises here are:

Furniture Lab --> well crafted
Furniture lab shows some halogen lamps.

It does not matter in this case where the halogen lamps were manufactured; it matters that we can conclude that those halogen lamps are well crafted! Which we can conclude, because the first conditional tells us that EVERYTHING at the Furniture Lab is well crafted. Don’t get tripped up on the some-all-most here; this question is mostly testing conditional logic.

[aescano209]

"most" here may still be relevant to reasoning process. Since "some" could mean "none"", and if a stimulus says "HL from [b]some major manufactures are on display at FL", it could still contain the possibility that "no HL are on FL",[/b] and thus the conclusion could not be established. But the use of "most" guarantees "at least one HL are on FL".

In correct answer B, it uses "several". In dictionary "several" means "a number of people or things that is more than two or three". Hence, it also functions to guarantee "at least one".

Hi Judaydaday,

The “most” in the stimulus is actually irrelevant. It’s just describing the halogen lamps’ place of origin. The key premises here are:

Furniture Lab --> well crafted
Furniture lab shows some halogen lamps.

It does not matter in this case where the halogen lamps were manufactured; it matters that we can conclude that those halogen lamps are well crafted! Which we can conclude, because the first conditional tells us that EVERYTHING at the Furniture Lab is well crafted. Don’t get tripped up on the some-all-most here; this question is mostly testing conditional logic.

I just wanted to clarify future readers. Some includes at least one. To say it can include none is incorrect. What we can't exclude with regards to "some" is the possibility that it could be all. Numerically" some" could be anywhere from just 1 to 100 (all), but some must include at least one.

[renata.gomez]

One way I was able to eliminate C was because the shops are "capable" of doing good mechanical work. That leaves it to speculation and doesn't say 100% that she will get good mechanical work.

This doesn't match "Any" item on display is well crafted.

[bashanchushui]

I made a mistake at the first time, either. Now I hope I can figure it out here why C is wrong.

CAN does not equal WILL. In another words, Can does not guarantee WILL.

"every shop is capable of doing mechanical work", does not mean that the car worked at each shop WILL get a good mechanical work.

Hope that helps.

[NatalieC941]

Hello,

I am still confused by C. I chose and slightly understand why B is the correct answer, but the justification for eliminating C is not doing it for me.

What does it mean when previous poster said, "(C) also contains a premise mismatch. Gianni CAN leave her car in the city, but we want to match to the ALL in the premise above. "Can" does not equal "all.""

I understand that original argument is:
Some A are B
All B are C
--------------
Some A are C

"B" as an answer choice matches this perfectly. However, I don't understand how you would diagram C and why it would need to match "ALL" in the premise above.

(Some A are B) "She can have her car worked on at any of several shops in city" <-- Is this the issue? It doesn't diagram as some A are B? If so, how does it diagram? Why would it need to match ALL?
All B are C
---------------
Some A are C

[andrewgong01]

Hello,

I am still confused by C. I chose and slightly understand why B is the correct answer, but the justification for eliminating C is not doing it for me.

What does it mean when previous poster said, "(C) also contains a premise mismatch. Gianni CAN leave her car in the city, but we want to match to the ALL in the premise above. "Can" does not equal "all.""

I understand that original argument is:
Some A are B
All B are C
--------------
Some A are C

"B" as an answer choice matches this perfectly. However, I don't understand how you would diagram C and why it would need to match "ALL" in the premise above.

(Some A are B) "She can have her car worked on at any of several shops in city" <-- Is this the issue? It doesn't diagram as some A are B? If so, how does it diagram? Why would it need to match ALL?
All B are C
---------------
Some A are C

I remember this problem...

It is a matter of degree and on two counts "C" is off and that was what the previous posts meant by premise mismatch. I think there are actaully two mismatches and not just one that was pointed out by the previous posters:

The first count is that it says that all workshops are capable of doing a good job. However, that does not translate to that we know for certain the job is a good job; we just know they are capable of it . For example, the blind review LSAT score shows I am capable of getting 17X but that, sadly, does not mean I will for sure get above 170 each and every time. For this part to match the original it would need to say that every shop always does a good job. Second, this answer choice says "sshe can " get her job done in the city but it does not say for sure she will. Hence, perhaps the person in question will get the job done in another city because labor is cheaper or not fix the car at all as the premise leaves open the possibility she won't even fix her car as it never said she must fix her car; perhaps she is fine with a dent on her door. To match the original it would have to say that the "She plans on fixing her car in the city" or, even better, "She will fix her car in this particular city".

In other words, and, in all, we need these things to match in terms of degree (e.g. can vs for sure) because the original stimulus is built on a strong conditional statement (the final sentence) and the sentence in between tells us exactly what has occured and NOT what MIGHT /COULD happen. Combined together it is strong enough to guarantee an outcome because we already know one thing occured (the thing on display) and that triggers a conditional of anything on display is good quality. Compare that to the strength of Choice "C" where the logical guarantee does not follow :
1) She MIGHT fix her car and if she does it might be in this city
and
2) Any work shop here is CAPABLE of doing a good job (that does mean the job will be a good job -- maybe they cut corners for new customers).
Therefore "we can be sure that Gianna will get at least some good work" ? No .... how do we know she will fix it in the city or fix at all and how do we know these capable workshops will carry through with a high quality repair?

[ohthatpatrick]

People are just saying that (C) isn't an argument that provides logical certainty.

The original argument is airtight logic.

(C) is a flawed argument. The conclusion could fairly conclude that "Gianna COULD get at least some mechanical work done to her car", but it can't definitively conclude that she WILL get some good work done.

Neither of the premises talk about what she WILL do.