Q3 - Commentator: If a political administration

[mshinners]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
This is an Inference question where the correct answer must be true based on the facts in the stimulus.

Break down the Stimulus:
The stimulus presents a combination of conditional statements and simple statements of facts:

1. political administration economically successful AND successful protecting individual liberties → overall success
2, administration that protects individual liberties may succeed overall
3. present administration hasn't cared for environment but is successful at protecting individual liberties

We can ignore "Even an administration that fails to care for the environment" in the second sentence because it doesn't trigger anything. An administration that protects individual liberties may succeed regardless of whether it cares for the environment or doesn't.

Any prephrase?
The first statement doesn't tell us anything about the present administration, since we don't know if the administration is economically successful. At most, we can combine the second and third statements to conclude that it may succeed overall.

Answer choice analysis:
A) We aren't told this, and can't connect the given statements to draw this conclusion.

B) We don't know that the current administration is an overall success, but according to the second and third statements it might be one.

C) Correct! The stimulus tells us that the administration protects individual liberties. If they are also economically successful, the first statement in the stimulus now applies, and we know they will be an overall success.

D) None of the statements in the stimulus tell us that caring for the environment is a result of any other condition. We don't know if economic success, protecting individual liberties, or anything else guarantees caring for the environment.

E) This is similar to the correct answer, choice (C), but be careful. Economic success, not environmental protection, is what allows us to conclude that the administration will be an overall success.

Takeaway/Pattern: Incorrect answer choices often use terms contained in the stimulus, but will try to connect them in ways that are not supported by the logical connections in the stimulus.

#officialexplanation

[sumukh09]

For this "must be true" question the best approach, I think, would be a diagrammatic one since there's conditional triggers all over the place in the stimulus and you're bound to find answer choices that contain conditional logic.

PA = political administration
EA = economically successful
SIL = successful at protecting individual liberties
OS = overall success
EC = environmental care (or cares for environment)

Premise 1: PA --> ES + SIL ---> OS
Premise 2: SIL + ~EC ---> MAY be an OS (we're missing a component ie) ES that would make the sufficient condition guarantee OS

Conclusion: PA ---> SIL + ~EC

A) is incorrect because there's no valid manipulation of the conditional logic above that would yield what answer choice A suggests, which is: PA --> ES

B) is wrong because according to premise 2, an administration may still be an overall success so we can't say for certain that it won't be

C) is the correct answer. It adds that missing component to the necessary part of the conclusion, namely ES, which would guarantee the necessary condition of OS.

D) way off, this says: PA --> ES --> EC

E) this says PA --> EC --> OS. No.

[demetri.blaisdell]

Thanks for posting, sumukh09. You did a nice job of explaining this question. But be careful about overdoing it with the diagramming. It's a tool you should use sparingly.

The premise that ends up being important is: Econ successful + respect individual liberties ---> Overall success

The new administration has protected individual liberties. We want to know if it's been economically successful. We get that in (C) as you said.

Nice job of explaining this. I just want to be sure you're not overdoing it with the diagramming. It's really a fallback that you should use if you are lost in the stimulus. Let me know if you have any questions.

Demetri

[sumukh09]

Hey Demetri,

Thanks for the feedback - appreciate it. I'm glad you brought up the point about excessive diagramming, particularly because the test is next week and this is something I need to have clarified. You suggest to use diagramming "sparingly," but I begin diagramming automatically as soon as I see a conditional trigger ie) "only if," "if," "unless," etc. Should I not do this? Sometimes I get caught up with the diagramming and all that does is slow me down or misguide me, however sometimes the diagramming does in fact lead me to the correct answer choice. But I would much rather prefer to avoid diagramming and just rely on my intuition. What do you think? Thanks again for the reply.

[demetri.blaisdell]

I wish I could tell you a rule for diagramming but it's really a personal preference. I tell students to diagram if they think they need it. Basically, if the conditional logic isn't tripping you up, you probably don't need to diagram it. If your "intuition" is enough that you're getting the questions right, trust it.

The most important thing is to feel comfortable. Especially because we're just a week away from the test, you should do what you've been doing. This is the time to try to work those last couple of kinks out of your approach but mostly to spend time re-visiting those areas of the test that you already do well in. Don't make any big changes now. Trust the prep you've been doing and go in to the test feeling confident. You can do this!

[timsportschuetz]

I have posted this same remark on several other questions and have noticed that the LSAT has utilized this common conditional logic trap on almost every test. It is important to note that EVEN IF never leads to any conditional logic inferences! EVEN IF, whenever encountered on a question with heavy formal logic, should be immediately put into the very very lowest rung of importance when evaluation answer choices! Often, the LSAT will state some categorical logic statements (ALL, NONE, EVERY, ETC.), and then use a some other categorical and/or SOME/MOST conditional logic statements in order to derive a conclusion. However, having EVEN IF present in a premise is an immediate red flag! Also, it should be noted that, having "CAN", "COULD", "MAY", and other similar indicator words present in a sentence immediately violates conditional logic and NO VALID INFERENCES CAN BE MADE!

I realize the above is not often mentioned, however, it is an extremely useful and powerful tool for eliminating attractive wrong answer choices! Test-writers know that stating words such as EVEN IF, MAY, COULD, POSSIBLE, ETC., can severely confuse people during the test. I hope this helps some people spending significant time on questions such as these that have never realized the above trap methods.

[Laura Damone]

Full Explanation

What does the stem tell us: Inference Family, Must Be True Flavor. Gotta be air tight!

Breakdown the stimulus: Lots of conditionals + a MBT stem means this question is a great candidate for diagramming.

Statement 1: $ success + indiv lib success → overall success

Statement 2: begins with “even”. That should raise a red flag. This is rarely part of a conditional statement. Then you see the word “may,” an even bigger red flag. Conditionals are about guarantees, not what “may” happen. Don’t get tricked into struggling to diagram this statement. Defer. Likely that this will be answered by some combination of 1 and 3.

Statement 3: The present administration fulfills two conditions: indiv lib success, and not protecting the environment. The latter is drawn from wonky statement 2, so defer on that too. Consider how the other lines up with statement 1.

$ success + indiv lib success → overall success
indiv lib success

Any prephrase? You can’t conclude much for certain here, because the present administration only met 1 of the compound sufficient conditions, so the correct answer is likely to address that fact in some way.

A) unsupported.
B) tempting, because we can’t yet prove that it is an overall success but ultimately unsupported. This is a common illegal negation trap. The stimulus says X + Y → Z. That statement will never allow us to conclude – Z.
C) correct! Fulfill the other sufficient and it guarantees the necessary.
D) unsupported. This just mashes together two disparate concepts.
E) unsupported. This fulfills the wrong condition. Money, not trees, will guarantee overall success.

Takeaways/Pattern: Don't get tricked into diagramming non-conditional statements on conditional questions. Look at how the conditionals line up and only pull from the non-conditional stuff if that doesn't get you to the right answer.

[SabrinaM590]

I have an issue with a.c (C):

(C) states that "IF the present administration is economically successful"...

The stimulus states that the present administration has "successfully protected individual liberties," but nowhere does it state that it is economically successful.

Are we therefore assuming that the current administration is economically successful by way of choosing C? Or does the "if" factor in (C) make it so that it's an inferred assumption?

Thanks in advance!