Q22 - Principle: A police officer is eligible

[superduperchong]

I have the answers narrowed down to choices A and B, but I really don't understand how they differ or why B is wrong. Thanks!

[maryadkins]

To put the principle in conditional language that we can track:

The first sentence tells us that if and only if a PO has an exemplary record is he or she eligible. This is a biconditional rule:

eligible --> exemplary record (no exemplary record --> not eligible)

exemplary record --> eligible (not eligible --> no exemplary record)

Then we're told:

eligible + exceeded reasonable expectations + saved someone's life by doing so --> should get it (if shouldn't get it --> wasn't eligible, or didn't exceed reasonable expectations, or didn't save someone's life)

Conclusion:
Franklin should, and Penn should not.

(A) satisfies all the conditions for Franklin to qualify for "should" and tells us that Penn didn't have an exemplary record, which means he's not eligible for the award. (The only way he can be eligible, remember, is to have an exemplary record.)
(B) is tempting. Penn didn't exceed expectations by saving the drowning child. But perhaps he exceeded expectations and saved someone else during the year. Or perhaps there's another way to qualify for "should." In other words, we're told that the ONLY way to be eligible is to have an exemplary record (see (A)). But we aren't told that the ONLY reason someone should get the award is to have saved someone and exceeded expectations by doing so. That could be just one way.
(C) is incorrect. If neither has an exemplary record, neither is eligible.
(D) tells us that Penn didn't save anyone's life, but again, we weren't told that the only route to "should receive" is to save someone's life. We're just told it's a way.
(E) is wrong because we don't know if the times Franklin exceeded expectations were the same times he saved someone's life. And we aren't given a reason why Penn is out.

[nanagyanewa]

Hi there,

i don't quite agree with your point that the first sentence is a biconditional. it says the officer is eligible IF teh officer has an exemplary record. doesn't that translate to:

if exemplary...> eligible?

[timmydoeslsat]

That is true, but then it states..."but not otherwise..."

Which means ~exemplary record ---> ~eligible

So we already knew exemplary record ---> eligible

That indicates biconditionality.

[jcl2153]

I found it useful and time-saving in evaluating the answer choices to make explicit something that is implicitly given (and also implied in the explanation above): that being eligible for the Mayor's Commendation is a necessary condition for receiving the Mayor's Commendation (and therefore a necessary condition for "should" receiving the Mayor's Commendation). As was explained above, the principle in the stimulus explicitly provides the following information:
P1:
(Eligible for Mayor's Commendation) <--> (Exemplary Record)
P2:
(Eligible for Mayor's Commendation) & (Exceeded what could b reasonably expected of a police officer) & (Saved someone's life in doing so) --> (Should receive Mayor's Commendation)
While the second premise of the principle is useful in that it provides a jointly sufficient condition for "should" receiving the Mayor's Commendation, we cannot, by means of negating that sufficient condition, negate the necessary condition to conclude that someone should not receive the Mayor's Commendation. The only way that we can conclude that someone should not receive the Mayor's Commendation is if the condition (should NOT receive Mayor's Commendation) is a necessary condition and lies on the right side of the arrow in a conditional statement. Making explicit that being eligible for the Mayor's Commendation is a necessary condition for "should" receiving the Mayor's Commendation does this for us:
(Should receive Mayor's Commendation) --> (Eligible for Mayor's Commendation)
Taking the contrapositive:
~(Eligible for Mayor's Commendation) --> ~(Should receive Mayor's Commendation).
Using this rule made it easier for me to sort through the answers. If an answer choice said that someone should not receive the Mayor's Commendation, then I knew it had have established that that person was not eligible for the Mayor's Commendation. Answer choice (A) did this; answer choice (B) did not.

That being said, maybe this reasoning's actually faulty and I just lucked out that it worked for this question. Plus, looking back on how long it took for me to write that out, maybe this is actually a quite convoluted explanation that's of little help to anyone else.

[LSAT-Chang]

Wow.. I eliminated (A) because it said "In saving a child" not that they DID save a child. "In saving a child" just sounds like they attempted to save a child but we don't know the outcome. They could have risked their lives and went to save a child but sadly failed.... I am in shock .

[shirando21]

That is true, but then it states..."but not otherwise..."

Which means ~exemplary record ---> ~eligible

So we already knew exemplary record ---> eligible

That indicates biconditionality.

I am not familiar with this "If A then B, but not otherwise" equals "if, and only if".

Do we have other examples in other preptests? I don't remember seeing it before.

[KakaJaja]

Wow.. I eliminated (A) because it said "In saving a child" not that they DID save a child. "In saving a child" just sounds like they attempted to save a child but we don't know the outcome. They could have risked their lives and went to save a child but sadly failed.... I am in shock .

Yes, I eliminate A for exactly the same reason. Could anyone tell me why "in saving a child" guarantees they did successfully save the life?

[cunseth]

This is a toughie. I don't think any of the previous explanations are sufficient.

Here's the key: (b) does not actually preclude Penn from receiving the award because he may have gone beyond what was reasonably expected in another instance. What if Penn saved a child yesterday and went beyond the call of duty? What if he has done it every day during the last year except when he was with Franklin? We have no idea!

(A) allows us to eliminate Penn by calling him ineligible from the start because he doesn't meet the condition of having an exemplary record.

[jm.kahn]

One can definitely rule out B but why is A correct?

Just because Penn can't receive the award because he is ineligible doesn't mean he shouldn't. This is a very large gap for a sufficient assumption question and (A) doesn't fill this gap of shift from "can't" to "shouldn't."

[mr2719]

One can definitely rule out B but why is A correct?

Just because Penn can't receive the award because he is ineligible doesn't mean he shouldn't. This is a very large gap for a sufficient assumption question and (A) doesn't fill this gap of shift from "can't" to "shouldn't."

The stimulus specifically stated that "an officer eligible for the award...should" So the conditional only applies to those already eligible.

"In saving a life" definitely guarantees the life was saved. IMO we would need a modifier like "in trying to" or "in attempting to" save a life, for any doubt to be raised. Think about this sentence: "In saving a child I broke his leg" entails that the child is still alive. Or else we would accept this in English: "In saving the child I didn't save the child" --> what?? Maybe you could accept that phrase in an extraordinary situation, like in saving the child you gave him/her a fatal concussion. Still, awkward. Hope that helps.

[dhlim3]

I picked A during the PT but switched to B on the BR, because I thought "Eligible" and "Exceeding Expectation" were Necessary conditions of "should receive the award".

So the conditional would look like:

P1: Exemplary Record <==> Eligible for Award
P2: Saved life ==> Should Receive Award
P3: Should Receive Award ==> Eligible for Award + Exceeded Expectation

B says Penn did not Exceed Expectation (Negation of Necessary Condition of P3), which would justify him not deserving of receiving the award.

Question is, how do I know if it is a sufficient condition?

[jabbathehomie]

I am hesitant to agree that "but not otherwise" indicates a biconditional statement.

Here is how I diagrammed the stimulus.
sentence one: exemplary record --> eligible
sentence two: eligible + exceeded + saved life --> award

combining the statements: exemplary record + exceeded + saved life --> award
contrapositive: -award --> -exemplary record or -exceeded or -saved life

The conclusion states that Penn should not receive an award, thus Penn needs to fulfill at least one of the necessary conditions in the contrapositive of the combined statements (directly above).

Answer choice (A) states that Penn -exemplary record, thus meeting one of the necessary conditions in the contrapositive of the combined statement. This answer choice also proves all three sufficient conditions for Franklin to receive the award. It states that Franklin saved life + exceeded + exemplary record and thus --> award. This is the only answer choice that satisfies the conditions for showing Franklin should receive the award and Penn should not.

CAVEAT: I am no LSAT expert, this is just how I processed this question.

[hwangbo.edu]

I am hesitant to agree that "but not otherwise" indicates a biconditional statement.

Here is how I diagrammed the stimulus.
sentence one: exemplary record --> eligible

To arrive at the bi-conditional, ask yourself: How does your sentence (ER --> Eligible) account for the condition "but not otherwise?" Alone it doesn't, and so requires an additional statement:

ER --> Eligible
NOT ER --> NOT Eligible

Note that the additional statement makes valid what would otherwise be (without it) a mistaken reversal/negation. Since only two valid states exist (both ER and Eligible; or neither), we can combine them into one biconditional statement that accounts for both states:

ER <--> Eligible (which also means NOT ER <--> NOT Eligible)

[NatalieC941]

Hello,

I still do not understand this. I chose E.

I am having a difficult time working out the conditional.

I thought that the second premise was:
If act saved life --> exceeded what could reasonably be expected --> eligible for award

BUT the posts above suggest:

If act saved life AND exceeded what could reasonably be expected --> eligible for award

Even if I tried the AND conditional statement, why would E be correct?
Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

Where did you see an A -> B -> C chain in the last sentence?

The second idea in your chain is attached via a "who" modifier.

Consider this:
A girl who likes Justin Bieber will go to his concert if she isn't sick.

How would you put that into conditional logic?

It wouldn't be accurate to say that
"if a girl isn't sick --> she'll go to Biebs' show"
(what if she doesn't like JB?)

It wouldn't be accurate to say that
"if a girl likes JB --> she'll go to Bieb's show"
(what if she's too sick to go?)

So we end up putting both of those conditions into the trigger:
"if a girl likes JB and isn't sick ---> she'll go to Bieb's show."

========================

This one said
"an eligible officer who did something that exceeded expectations should receive the award if the action saved someone's life".

Exceeding expectations isn't enough to get the award.
Saving someone's life isn't enough.
It's the combo that merits getting an award: you went beyond the call of duty and in doing so saved someone's life?! Get that officer an award!

"if eligible offer exceeded expectations and in doing so saved a life, then give an award."

If we think Franklin should get an award, we need to know that she:
1. is an eligible offer (has an exemplary record)
2. did something to exceed expectations
and
3. that something saved someone's life

If we think Penn shouldn't get an award then we need to know that
1. he isn't eligible (doesn't have an exemplary record)

The rule we're given about "exceeding expectations while saving a life" is a rule that proves you SHOULD get an award. It doesn't have a trigger where you can derive that someone SHOULDN'T get an award.

Only the first sentence gives us that. An office IS NOT ELIGIBLE for an award if they don't have an exemplary record.


For (E), what do we know about Franklin?
We know #1. But the intended matches for #2 and #3 are disconnected facts. At some times he's saved lives. At other times he's exceeded expectations. But the rule is concerned with "doing something that exceeded expectations ... and the act saved someone's life".

We don't know if Franklin's saved lives were actions that exceeded expectations (or vice versa).

For (A), Frankin is #1, #2, and #3.
And Penn is not exemplary, so we can prove he's not eligible for an award.

[RuonanW40]

Hi，
Thanks for the detailed explanation. However, I am a little bit confused with the explanation on Penn's part of answer choice E. I don't know where can be inferred that "we aren't given a reason why Penn is out". Therefore, I have a different view. I think "On no occasion this year has Penn saved a person's life or exceeded what could be reasonably expected of an officer" means Penn has lacked two of the sufficient conditions, "exceeded reasonable expectations + saved someone's life by doing so" of receiving the rewards. I think E's error is solely on Frank's part not on Penn's. I am not sure if I understand it right though.
Thanks again.

To put the principle in conditional language that we can track:

The first sentence tells us that if and only if a PO has an exemplary record is he or she eligible. This is a biconditional rule:

eligible --> exemplary record (no exemplary record --> not eligible)

exemplary record --> eligible (not eligible --> no exemplary record)

Then we're told:

eligible + exceeded reasonable expectations + saved someone's life by doing so --> should get it (if shouldn't get it --> wasn't eligible, or didn't exceed reasonable expectations, or didn't save someone's life)

Conclusion:
Franklin should, and Penn should not.

(A) satisfies all the conditions for Franklin to qualify for "should" and tells us that Penn didn't have an exemplary record, which means he's not eligible for the award. (The only way he can be eligible, remember, is to have an exemplary record.)
(B) is tempting. Penn didn't exceed expectations by saving the drowning child. But perhaps he exceeded expectations and saved someone else during the year. Or perhaps there's another way to qualify for "should." In other words, we're told that the ONLY way to be eligible is to have an exemplary record (see (A)). But we aren't told that the ONLY reason someone should get the award is to have saved someone and exceeded expectations by doing so. That could be just one way.
(C) is incorrect. If neither has an exemplary record, neither is eligible.
(D) tells us that Penn didn't save anyone's life, but again, we weren't told that the only route to "should receive" is to save someone's life. We're just told it's a way.
(E) is wrong because we don't know if the times Franklin exceeded expectations were the same times he saved someone's life. And we aren't given a reason why Penn is out.