Q19 - Team captain: Winning requires the

[yusangmin]

ok so what the heck did they do with C here..
i only chose it because the others were so crappy..but

how is NOT C , then NOT A

equal the same thing as

not retain its status unless it increases campagin?

isnt that basically saying a, then must be B

[cyruswhittaker]

From the argument in question 19:

(win)-->(willingness to cooperate)-->(motivated)

From this, we can deduce:

(win)-->(motivated)

Therefore by the contrapositive, the argument's conclusion is formed:

~(motivated)-->~(win)


Choice C:

(retain status)-->(raises more money)-->(increased campaign)

Deduction:

(retain status)-->(increase campaign)

By the contrapositive, the conclusion is formed:

~(increase campaign)-->~(retain status)

The argument states its conclusion as such:

"So our party will not retain its status unless it increases its campaigning."

This is logically equivalent to:

"So our party will not retain its status if it does not increase campaigning." If the argument stated it this way, it would probably be really clear for you to see (because it matches the wording of the original argument).

But this question appears that it is testing whether you can recognize the different variations in which a conditional statment can be written.

[greatwhiteshark100]

C still does not make sense because I thought "unless" means the phrase that follows is a necessary condition?

[noah]

C still does not make sense because I thought "unless" means the phrase that follows is a necessary condition?

Your question sounds a bit programmatic. Try to develop a more intuitive sense of necessary and sufficient, as the LSAT can throw you lots of twists.

Take this statement: I cannot swim unless there's a lifeguard present.

Of the following four possible "triggers" (sufficient conditions), only two are sufficient:

I swim -->

I don't swim -->

Lifeguard -->

No lifeguard -->

Which are they. Think about it before reading on...

If there's no lifeguard --> no swim

And, if I swim --> lifeguard.

If there's a lifeguard, I may or may not swim. Perhaps I'm sick that day. Similarly, me not swimming doesn't indicate there's no lifeguard. Perhaps I'm not swimming because I'm living the life on a huge yacht. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7yfISlGLNU

"Unless" could be seen as indicating what is necessary, but it's what is necessary if you're NOT going to have the other part. If you want a "trick", change "unless" to "If NOT."

In terms of this question, we're given this argument to match:

winning --> willingness --> motivation
Thus, winning --> motivation.

(C) gives us the following:

status --> more money --> more campaigning
Thus, status --> more campaigning

As for the wrong answers:

(A) healthy --> exercise --> risk of injury
Thus healthy --> not exercise

We should have risk of injury in the conclusion!

(B) improve --> learning --> mistakes
Thus, mistakes --> improve

Reversed conclusion!

(D) repair --> enthusiastic --> mechanical apt.
Thus, NOT repair --> NOT mechanical apt.

Negated conclusion!

(E) ticket --> line --> patience
Thus, NOT line --> NOT patience

Conclusion should be ticket --> patience. Instead, we get a truncated and negated conclusion.

[sheffieldjordan]

I read reasoning as: Winning-->Willingness--> motivation,

thus the contrapositive: ~motivation--> ~Winning

I was looking for an answer like the contrapositive listed above and spent like 3 minutes diagramming them all out because I didn't see one.

Does the key to recognizing the answer lie in selecting an answer than uses correct logical reasoning? not simply a repeat of a logical contrapositive?

Thanks.

[noah]

I read reasoning as: Winning-->Willingness--> motivation,

thus the contrapositive: ~motivation--> ~Winning

I was looking for an answer like the contrapositive listed above and spent like 3 minutes diagramming them all out because I didn't see one.

Does the key to recognizing the answer lie in selecting an answer than uses correct logical reasoning? not simply a repeat of a logical contrapositive?

Thanks.

The two match logically, and the final sentence has a bit different grammatical structure ("unless" versus "if not"), but those are really the same logically. I like the idea of focusing on conclusion mismatches, but clearly that much wiggle room is allowed.

[ban2110]

I'm rather lost with regards to the explanation for choice (C). Perhaps I am mistaken but I thought when there is an "unless" in a conditional statement one takes the statement modified by the unless as the necessary condition and then the other condition is negated and becomes the sufficient.

In this way I diagrammed: "So our party will not retain its status unless it increases its campaigning" = R --> C
R = retain status
C = Campaigning

Can someone please explain to me what I am doing wrong? I've never had an issue with unless statements but this question really threw me for a loop because I just couldn't get any of the answer choice conclusions to match up logically with that of the stimulus.

Thank you!

[timmydoeslsat]

You are correct in your assessment of how to interpret an unless statement.

The stimulus we want to parallel is:

W ---> C ---> M
______________
~M ---> ~W

Answer choice C gives us:

S ---> RMM ---> IC
________________
S ---> IC

Other than the contrapositive being used in the stimulus and not in the correct answer, this is an equivalent match. It is not matched as closely as it could be, but it is the same manner of reasoning.

When I just did this question, I liked C, but I continued to look for a better match, as I have been burned before by a question in which a closer match was used by an answer choice also containing the contrapositive.

[rsmithpt267]

Can someone explain the C + D choices a bit further. So the stimulus is this:

w ---> wc ---> m

So... -W ---> -M

Choice C says:

S--->RMM--->MC

So... -S ---> -MC

Choice D says:

RB ---> E ---> MA
-RB ---> -MA

The last three statements of each are:
So you will not win if you are not motivated.
So our party will not retain its status unless it increases its campaigning.
So if you are not able to repair your bike, you lack mechanical aptitude.

Unless some of my conditionals are off, I do not see any difference in either of these 3. Please help. Thanks.