Q25 - Because of the recent transformation

[Shiggins]

I just want to go over the structure of this question. I chose B over E and realized that I had diagrammed it incorrectly.

I believe the correct diagram is:

Quore inc -> increase productivity by 10 / go bankrupt

If no increase by 10-> go bankrupt

If not bankrupt -> increase by 10

If increase by 10 -> increase by 20 is attainable

Add the last two sentences that I wrote and take the contra pos and that is choice E

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice work Shiggins! That looks really good.

For simplicity, I'd set up the stimulus as comprising two statements.

~ ^10% ---> B
^10% ---> ^20% attainable

Taking the contrapositive of the 2nd statement

~^20% attainable ---> ~^10%

adding that to the first statement and we can infer

~^20% attainable ---> B

which is expressed in answer choice (E), just as you said!

Let's look at the incorrect answers though too:

(A) is too positive. We don't know that Quore will be able to survive the transformation of the market. And it is too limitiing as we do not know that it is only Quore's production structure that makes potentially surviving the market transformation possible.
(B) looks tempting but represents a negation of the inference of the statements in the stimulus.
(C) plays a hypothetical "what if" about a situation that we are presented no information on. We are given no information about what would happen had there not been a transformation in the market.
(D) is too optimistic. We cannot be certain that the Quore will actually be able to pull off a 10% increase in productivity over the next 2 years.

Nice work Shiggins! Hope that helps...

[pedrobarbosa88]

sorry for such a short explanation, but here it goes:

stimulus is basically saying that:

MT:transformation of the market
BR: bankruptcy
v: or

IF 10%, then 20% is attainable= is basically (10%----->20%)
contrapositive is (~20%-------->~10%)


therefore:

MT-----> [(10%------20%) v BR ] ....................... this a classical either/or

(~20%----->~10%) ........................ answer E says that if ~20%,
-----------------------
∴ BR ......................then it reasons BR follows



*the other answers are either to strong and do not pass the fact test

this type of reasoning is called "Disjunctive Syllogism" DS

and it is basically an either/or statement

such as:
A v B ..................which translates to either A or B
~A ............... A does not happen
------------
∴ B ................ it follows that B then will happen


this clearly represents answer E.

[ericha3535]

I just want to make sure that if I could this all the time "logically."

The stimulus says"

"Due to recent transformation of market, K has to increase its productivity by 10% or go bankrupt." (slightly reworded)
(Ref. PT5 sec 1 #25)

If you diagram this, it comes out as: Bankrupt -> ~10% or vice versa.
So... if you see the word "or" in the sentence, can you always diagram like that?

By the way... I just realized this... LSAT's uses the "inclusive" version of "or," so that it could also be used as "and."
Does this mean that in this sentence K could go bankrupt despite of increasing its 10% productivity?
I am so confused now ...
because that diagram above is expressing the "exclusive version of or."

OR... does this "inclusive or" only play a role in LGs...

Oh oh!
I have another question...
when you diagram conditional statements, do you try to understand them or just draw them out and try to match them to ACs?

[tommywallach]

Hey Ericha,

Fear not! I'm here to help!

Okay, first thing's first. Never apply conditional logic unless it's a conditional logic question. This one is not a conditional logic question. I mean, you could conceivably do it that way, but there's no point. For example, the recent transformation is not relevant to the argument, but it would end up being central to your diagramming.

(BTW, in general, post a question like this in the thread with the actual question. Oh, and NEVER rephrase the language. Every single word is important, including placement.)

As for the issue of "or" being inclusive, you're right. This argument makes it very clear that increasing productivity does not necessarily lead to the company surviving (it goes out of its way to say "or it will CERTAINLY go bankrupt"; this is why you don't want to change the language...that "certainly" tells you that there will still be a possibility of bankruptcy even if they DO go bankrupt).

And when you diagram, you absolutely have to understand what it is you're doing. There's a little more leeway on match the structure questions, but there's none on conditional assumption type questions. In general, the deeper your understanding, the better you'll do. If the question is easier, you might be able to get away with just matching letters, but as they get harder, that method will begin to fall apart.

Hope that helps!

-t

[XEVIAN_ZONG]

Can you explain to me why B) is a negation of the inference? Thanks!

Nice work Shiggins! That looks really good.

For simplicity, I'd set up the stimulus as comprising two statements.

~ ^10% ---> B
^10% ---> ^20% attainable

Taking the contrapositive of the 2nd statement

~^20% attainable ---> ~^10%

adding that to the first statement and we can infer

~^20% attainable ---> B

which is expressed in answer choice (E), just as you said!

Let's look at the incorrect answers though too:

(A) is too positive. We don't know that Quore will be able to survive the transformation of the market. And it is too limitiing as we do not know that it is only Quore's production structure that makes potentially surviving the market transformation possible.
(B) looks tempting but represents a negation of the inference of the statements in the stimulus.[/color]
(C) plays a hypothetical "what if" about a situation that we are presented no information on. We are given no information about what would happen had there not been a transformation in the market.
(D) is too optimistic. We cannot be certain that the Quore will actually be able to pull off a 10% increase in productivity over the next 2 years.

Nice work Shiggins! Hope that helps...