Q22 - It is an absurd idea

[cyruswhittaker]

Can you go over #22 please?

My justification for A is that the argument is essentially rephrasing the contrapositive of the first sentence.

Would you agree with this?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

I agree w/you, with the caveat that in both cases the author is taking very questionable liberties w/the contrapositive ("subsidize" and "support" are not exactly the same, etc.).

[cyruswhittaker]

Yes that's why it caught me off guard at first, so I didn't know if there was a clearer way to frame the argument.

[tamwaiman]

the government refuses to support it does not allow.

~support --> ~allow

no one is allowed to create art without a government subsidy.

allow --> support (subsidy)

[skapur777]

I also have no idea what exactly they're saying here. A lot of the answer choices seem correct! And I agree that if this is indeed a contrapositive-type diagram...they really have taken liberties especially with the wording "subsidy" for support....

[timmydoeslsat]

I also have no idea what exactly they're saying here. A lot of the answer choices seem correct! And I agree that if this is indeed a contrapositive-type diagram...they really have taken liberties especially with the wording "subsidy" for support....

The answer choices appear to be correct at first glance, but you need to really internalize what they are saying and how they differ from the stimulus.

Stimulus:

Allow ---> Subsidy (support) change of words here.

And the conclusion is that [~Support ---> ~Allow] is absurd.

A) Break Law ---> Driver Arrested.

Conclusion is that [~Driver Arrested ---> ~Break law] is absurd.

I notice that there is no language shift in the conclusion. I am on the lookout for it. As of now, this fits, but it does not have the word change.

B) Driver Arrested ---> Broken the law

Conclusion is that [~Driver Arrested ---> ~Break law] is absurd.

This is flawed reasoning. Denying the sufficient condition will not deny the necessary condition.

Eliminate.

C) Scientist successful ---> Government grant

Conclusion is that [Government grant ---> Scientist successful] is absurd.

This is flawed reasoning. Having a case of the necessary condition does not mean we have a case of the sufficient condition. Eliminate.

D) Successful ---> Support

Conclusion is that [Support ---> Successful] is absurd.

This is the same flawed reasoning error as choice C. Eliminate.

E) Research ---> Government grant

Conclusion is that [Government grant ---> Successful] is absurd.

This goes far beyond word changing with it going from research to success. It is also wants to use the necessary condition given in the premise as a sufficient condition to conclude something. That is a flaw. Eliminate.

Choice A it is.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Honestly, that explanation is perfect. Nice work timmydoeslsat! Your work is solid.

they really have taken liberties especially with the wording "subsidy" for support....

I agree, but there are lots of times on this test when you just have to roll with it. But could you get a subsidy without getting support? I mean words have meaning and we have to consider that too. And once we see the structure, the incorrect answers were so clearly "reversals" or "negations," it makes it a no-brainer to go with the last answer standing that's close.

Right?

[pathosj]

This is just to exercise my conditional reasoning, but I think your breakdown of (D) is wrong.

It says "The notion that every scientists who is supported by a government grant will be successful is absurd."

I translate this as Support --> Successful.

Later, the rewording given is "No scientist lacking government support will be successful."

I get rid of the double negative and read "Scientists with government support will be successful."

Therefore, it is a restatement- Support --> Successful.

By the way, I was a bit confused because you put the conclusions second, but the others are proper.

Please let me know if my analysis is faulty.

[timmydoeslsat]

This is just to exercise my conditional reasoning, but I think your breakdown of (D) is wrong.

It says "The notion that every scientists who is supported by a government grant will be successful is absurd."

I translate this as Support --> Successful.

Later, the rewording given is "No scientist lacking government support will be successful."

I get rid of the double negative and read "Scientists with government support will be successful."

Therefore, it is a restatement- Support --> Successful.

By the way, I was a bit confused because you put the conclusions second, but the others are proper.

Please let me know if my analysis is faulty.

There is an error with your translation of the "restatement" given in D.

The phrase in question is: "No scientist lacking governmental support will be successful."

That can be diagrammed as:

~Governmental Support ---> ~Successful

Successful ---> Governmental Support


I placed the conclusion second as to show the true meaning of the argument. The conclusion rests on the evidence given. The evidence is the restatement.

[pathosj]

I appreciate you pointing out which statements are which, but that's not where I'm confused. I can see clearly from your original post what your diagram was. Can you elaborate on the steps you took to get to that statement?

Here's my second try:
"No scientist lacking government support will be successful"

Getting rid of the "no" for a second, and replacing "lacking" for the word, "without", it would read "Scientist without government support will be successful" (~support --> successful).

Put the "no" back in and you get (support --> successful).

That's my thought process anyway. My conditional reasoning is woefully slow, so I appreciate the forum's help with this.

[timmydoeslsat]

I appreciate you pointing out which statements are which, but that's not where I'm confused. I can see clearly from your original post what your diagram was. Can you elaborate on the steps you took to get to that statement?

Here's my second try:
"No scientist lacking government support will be successful"

Getting rid of the "no" for a second, and replacing "lacking" for the word, "without", it would read "Scientist without government support will be successful" (~support --> successful).

Put the "no" back in and you get (support --> successful).

That's my thought process anyway. My conditional reasoning is woefully slow, so I appreciate the forum's help with this.

Sorry about the miscommunication.

The way you are diagramming the conditional statement:

"No scientist lacking government support will be successful"

Is not correct.

Instead of worrying about replacing words, we need to think about things in the context of how to generate a conditional statement from this.

If I were to tell you that "No A is B."

We would have: A ---> ~B

Think about that A ---> ~B in the same context of the statement...No scientist lacking government support will be successful

So if you are a scientist lacking government support....you will not be successful.

No chance that you could be successful.

~government support ---> ~successful

Contrapositive of that statement is:

successful ---> government support


Please tell me if you are still unclear!

[pathosj]

Thanks, Timmy, this really cleared things up for me. I think it'll really help breaking down conditional statements into elements like A and B to work with them more properly.

Kudos!

[Raiderblue17]

I missed this, but after really looking at it, i noticed a HUGE OMISSION that EVERYBODY should be aware of.

The question asks for simmilar pattern of reasoning, so this means that ONE will be a logical pattern the rest will not.

So this means that any not logical set up will have to be eliminated. B thru E, especially E are all illogical, because they don't use the contrapositives.

Easy Peasy when you look at it again. *Kicks One Self*

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

So this means that any not logical set up will have to be eliminated. B thru E, especially E are all illogical, because they don't use the contrapositives.

Easy Peasy when you look at it again. *Kicks One Self*

Careful, sometimes the question will ask you to find a similar pattern of reasoning even though the pattern contains erroneous reasoning. So it's not always the case that if the question asks you to find a similar pattern of reasoning, that any answer choice with erroneous reasoning would be incorrect.

In this case the stimulus contains reasoning that reflects contrapositive argument structure (nicely identified Raiderblue17!), so the correct answer will do so as well, which is provided in answer choice (A).

Stimulus: Contrapositive
~S ---> ~A
-------------
A ---> S

(A) Contrapositive
~A ---> ~BL
--------------
BL ---> A

(B) Negation
~A ---> ~BL
--------------
A ---> BL

(C) Reversal
Sup ---> Suc
---------------
Suc --> Sup

(D) Negation
Sup ---> Suc
--------------
~Sup ---> ~Suc

(E) relates different terms
Sup ---> Suc
--------------
Allowed ---> Sup (though the support is implied)

#officialexplanation

[susanpelletier]

I'm confused as to why the stimulus isn't notated as:

~support -> ~allow
is like saying
~support -> ~allow

Help!

[elizabeth.baber]

That is exactly how notated it too. Even the "correct" solution given above essentially boils down to this.

1. Allow ---> Subsidy (support) change of words here.

2. And the conclusion is that [~Support ---> ~Allow] is absurd.

one can be written as ~subsidy--->allow and two as allow--->subsidy.

How are we to decide whether to notate it as a contrapositive or not?

I'm confused as to why the stimulus isn't notated as:

~support -> ~allow
is like saying
~support -> ~allow

Help!

[ohthatpatrick]

You two are correct in thinking that our author thinks that this rule is absurd:
~support --> ~allow

The author goes on to restate that rule in contrapositive form:

Allowed --> Subsidy

(note: we have to accept that govt. support and govt. subsidy are interchangeable in order to believe that his restatement is the contrapositive of the original)

In terms of the question, "how are we to decide whether to notate it as a contrapositive or not" ... I'm not sure I understand that question.

A conditional statement and its contrapositive are really one and the same thing. So it's arbitrary which one we're calling the contrapositive. It's almost like if you and I are standing across the room from each other: I would say, "I'm here and you're there" ... but you could also say "I'M here and YOU'RE there" and we'd both be right.

If I gave you the rule "if P, then Q" you could write it down as
P-->Q
or
~Q-->~P
or both.

Neither one of those conditionals is inherently the contrapositive.

Given
P --> Q
we can say that
~Q --> ~P is the contrapositive

But given
~Q --> ~P
we can say that
P --> Q is the contrapositive

So what you call the contrapositive is just a reflection on where you started.

The first rule discussed is Q22 is "whatever artistic endeavor the govt. doesn't support it does not allow".

Since "all/each/any/every/whatever" type universals are sufficient conditions, we would most naturally write that sentence as
~Support --> ~Allow.

Because that's our starting point, we're calling the second sentence the contrapositive.

When you see "No A is B", you translate it into "All A's are ~B".

Again, "all/each/any/every" universals are sufficient conditions, so we would naturally write the second sentence as
allowed --> DO have a govt. subsidy

You could call the first sentence the contrapositive of the second or vice versa. The important thing to recognize is that they are two different but equivalent ways of writing the same rule.

The four wrong answers DON'T give you two different but equivalent ways of writing the same rule.

If I haven't answered the question or clarified the confusion, please let me know.

[cyt5015]

Is this a circular reasoning even though using contrapositive as evidence? The author also assumes that the rephrased claim is absurd to conclude the contrapositive is absurd. Is this a valid way to argue? Circular reasoning is a flaw. Thank you!

[ohthatpatrick]

I don't feel quite right calling it a circular argument, but I guess we could. There really IS no premise.

Normally, a circular argument would sound like:
All clowns are scary. After all, if you're not scary, you're not a clown.

The conclusion is a restatement of the premise.

Conc: X
Prem: X

Here, we're trying to say that a claim is absurd by merely rephrasing the same claim.

Conc: X is absurd
Prem: If you rephrase X, it sounds like this.

So I don't know if this technically fits the definition of a circular argument, but it feels like one to me.

The author hasn't given us any reason for thinking either the original claim or the rephrased claim is absurd.

It is NOT a valid argument. The author is assuming that the rephrased claim is absurd.

[MeenaV936]

For Match the Reasoning questions, will the reasoning in the stimulus always be valid unless noted otherwise? For instance, in this question, because the question itself doesn't say "flawed reasoning" (which would make it a Match the Flaw question), do we assume the reasoning is logically valid?