Q2 - All cattle ranchers dislike long

[kopoku.08]

can someone explain why answer choice (c) is the correct choice.

I chose answer choice as my best guess when going through this timed.

I can understand why (c) is correct if i don't try and diagram this when i am reviewing why i got it wrong but under timed conditions, I immediately think to diagram this question and I don't know how the answer is (c).

Thanks for help.

[timmydoeslsat]

Unusual type of question for #2 in a section for sure.

This stimulus is all about conditional logic.

We know:

CR ---> ~Like LW

SRO ---> Like LW

So based on those two statements, we realize that we are dealing with 2 entities (CR and SRO) that are mutually exclusive. We know that there is no overlap between being a CR and being a SRO.

We also know that some lawyers are CR.

So we now have:

L some CR ---> ~Like LW

SRO ---> Like LW
__________________________
SRO ---> ~L


This question stem gave us that as our conclusion. As of now, with the evidence presented, we could not conclude that SRO and L are mutually exclusive entities. Perhaps some lawyers are CR and some are SRO.

In other words, maybe some lawyers like LW and some ~like LW.

We need something to help us with this idea that being a lawyer could never lead you to also being a SRO. So we would really like to see an answer choice talking about all lawyers for sure.

A) CR some L? We already have this! This gives us no extra support.

B) This tells us absolutely nothing about lawyers.

C) All lawyers are cattle ranchers!

L ---> CR

And we know that if you are a CR, you are not a SRO.

So if you are a SRO, you are not a lawyer.

This is our answer.

D) ~Like LW ---> CR

We only know about some L. So this still is only giving us justification for claiming that L some CR. We could not state that SRO ---> ~L

E) Nothing is discussed with increasing profits so we cannot even reach the necessary condition of SRO. And even if we did, this has nothing with lawyers in it.

[bbirdwell]

I would suggest diagramming this one. It doesn't take long, and when you see simple conditional statements like these, it's a great idea.

Notice we have no conclusion. Only 3 statements:

cattle rancher --> ~like long winter
resort owner --> like long winter
some lawyers --> cattle ranchers

Then the question stem adds this conclusion:
resort owner --> ~lawyer

Now what we have is essentially a sufficient assumption question. Our job is to connect the dots in such a way that the conclusion given in the question stem is made correct.

The only way we can prove that resort owners are definitely not lawyers is to somehow prove that lawyers do NOT like long winters.

Something like "no lawyers like long winters" would do this:
lawyer --> ~like long winter.

Given that this is the LSAT, things are unlikely to be so simple when the test-writers could add one extra step. That extra step is to use "cattle ranchers" as a middle-man between lawyers and winters.

Just as "no lawyers like long winters" would suffice, so would "no lawyers is a cattle rancher," because this arrives at the same result:
lawyer --> cattle rancher --> ~like long winters

This is exactly what C does, and none of the others comes close.

As a quick elimination game, we could've eliminated every choice that did not contain either "lawyers and long winters" or "lawyers and cattle ranchers". This alone would've gotten us to A and C. Then, as timmy pointed out, we'd have to choose C because the argument already gave us A ("some" is a two-way street; if we know some A are B, then we know that some B are A).

[mark_gg_daniels]

I hate abstract questions like this with no real world link. I personally find them unfair and essentially 'trick' questions. I always do well o the toughest questions (10-20ish) and lose points on the easy ones because (1-10, 20-26), frankly, my mind can work through complex real world scenarios very well, but when we go into the rabbit hole of absurdities, I get lost.

The last statement 'some lawyers are cattle ranchers' should not be present if the answer is 'all lawyers are cattle ranchers' (which i the answer) as it is reasonable for a person to deem these statements as incompatible and think the correct anwer cannot be right. I almost broke my laptop in anger going over this question because C could only be correct, yet the last statement seemed to contradict it.. of course in LSAT world 'some' and all can be the same thing (unlike the real world.. whic we inhabit), but they shouldn't make it this central to the question.

Mini rant there, but seriously... cattle ranchers and lawyers? Wtf.

[WaltGrace1983]

I hate abstract questions like this with no real world link. I personally find them unfair and essentially 'trick' questions. I always do well o the toughest questions (10-20ish) and lose points on the easy ones because (1-10, 20-26), frankly, my mind can work through complex real world scenarios very well, but when we go into the rabbit hole of absurdities, I get lost.

The last statement 'some lawyers are cattle ranchers' should not be present if the answer is 'all lawyers are cattle ranchers' (which i the answer) as it is reasonable for a person to deem these statements as incompatible and think the correct anwer cannot be right. I almost broke my laptop in anger going over this question because C could only be correct, yet the last statement seemed to contradict it.. of course in LSAT world 'some' and all can be the same thing (unlike the real world.. whic we inhabit), but they shouldn't make it this central to the question.

Mini rant there, but seriously... cattle ranchers and lawyers? Wtf.

No contradiction here. "All" includes "some." It wouldn't be contradictory to say "I have all the cookies" and "I have some of the cookies"

It is just a bit odd is all...

[alexroark5]

Would appreciate it if one of the instructors can make sure that what I am saying is alright.

C (cattle ranchers)
S (ski resort owners)
W (like long winters)
L (lawyers)

The first two premises give us:

C--> ~W
S--> W

Third premise yields:

L <--(some)--> C --> ~W
The third premise above also allows us to conclude that some lawyers do not like long winters which is a formal logic chain that is commonly tested on the LSAT.

But really isn't this third premise is unnecessary to answer the question correctly, right? I feel like its thrown in there just to distract us. All we need are the first two premises. Putting and L to the left of the first premise yields

L --> C --> ~W
S --> W

therefore if we take the contrapositive of the first premise and link it to the second we arrive at the conclusion:

S --> W --> ~C --> ~L (Ski resort owners are not Lawyers)

[pa.perezelias]

The previous poster has it perfectly. The other thing that helped me is thinking that some can be some, possibly all.

[roflcoptersoisoi]

Premises:
lawyers <—— some ——> cattle rancher —> ~ like long winters
ski resort owner —> like long winters
long winters --> increased profits

——————————
Conclusion: ski resort owner —> ~ lawyer

How do we get from ski resort owner to ~ lawyer?

Link up some of the premises

ski resort owner --> like long winter —> ~ cattle rancher —> ~ lawyer

So to get from ski resort owner to ~ lawyer, we need to assume that: ski resort owner --> like long winter —> ~ cattle rancher ---> ~ lawyer

Answer choice C is just the contrapositive of : ~ cattle rancher ---> ~ lawyer.

(A) Premise booster
(B) This may be true but is completely irrelevant.
(D) Would produce a bi-conditional that has no bearing on the reasoning
(E) Irrelevant. What does increasing profits have to do with being a lawyer?