Q3 - If the city council maintains

[agersh144]

Can someone diagram this one out for me please?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Here you go, though I would never notate this one on test day because all of the incorrect answers can be eliminated as they bring in issues that are out of scope--these eliminations do not require seeing the chain of logic, but rather recognizing issues that should not be discussed.

The argument looks something like this:

~Increase Spending --> Sales Tax 2%
------------------------------------------
~Sales Tax 2% --> Increase Spending

This conclusion represents a contrapositive of the original conditional statement. Answer choice (C) does the same:

~Increase Wages --> ~Increase Prices
-----------------------------------------
Increase Prices --> Increase Wages

Incorrect Answers
(A)
~Rising --> ~Increase Prices
------------------------------
~Increase Prices --> Sell More Homes

** Selling more homes is out of scope!

(B)
Reduce Shoplifting --> More Detectives
---------------------------------------
~More Detectives --> Reduced Profits

** Reduced profits is out of scope!

(D)
Similar Profits --> ~Increase Prices
--------------------------------------
Increase Prices --> Improve Services

** Improved services is out of scope!

(E)
Good Papers --> Good Journalists
------------------------------------
~Good Journalists --> Circulation Falls

** Circulation falling is out scope!

Hope that helps!

[pkujasonsmith]

Here you go, though I would never notate this one on test day because all of the incorrect answers can be eliminated as they bring in issues that are out of scope--these eliminations do not require seeing the chain of logic, but rather recognizing issues that should not be discussed.

The argument looks something like this:

~Increase Spending --> Sales Tax 2%
------------------------------------------
~Sales Tax 2% --> Increase Spending

This conclusion represents a contrapositive of the original conditional statement. Answer choice (C) does the same:

~Increase Wages --> ~Increase Prices
-----------------------------------------
Increase Prices --> Increase Wages

Incorrect Answers
(A)
~Rising --> ~Increase Prices
------------------------------
~Increase Prices --> Sell More Homes

** Selling more homes is out of scope!

(B)
Reduce Shoplifting --> More Detectives
---------------------------------------
~More Detectives --> Reduced Profits

** Reduced profits is out of scope!

(D)
Similar Profits --> ~Increase Prices
--------------------------------------
Increase Prices --> Improve Services

** Improved services is out of scope!

(E)
Good Papers --> Good Journalists
------------------------------------
~Good Journalists --> Circulation Falls

** Circulation falling is out scope!

Hope that helps!

I guess mattsherman was lucky that he got the correct answer,the reasoning above is wrong.

The reason why (C) is parallel with the original statement is that they have the same flaw. You diagramed "maintain spending" as "~Increase Wages"（not increase）. However, it actually should be "increase or decrease".

The flaw of the original arguement is that it assuems that because the spending maintain (not increase and not decrease), tax would be 2%, therefore if tax increase then spending increase. The correct Contrapositive should be: tax increase (one possibility of not 2%)----> spending increase or spending decrease.
So the author overlooked a possibility, the increased tax could be the result of other factors, namely the decreased spending.

(C)'s argument has the same flaw: because wage not increase (decrease or maintain)-----> price maintain, therefore price increase---> wage increase. Correct Contrapositive should be : price increase (one possibility of price not maintain)------> wage maintain or wage increase.
Thus, the author of C also overlooks a possibility that even though the price has increased, the wage could have increase or could have stayed the same.

Not native speaker, just thinking about the logic.

[Smokyearlgrey]

Here you go, though I would never notate this one on test day because all of the incorrect answers can be eliminated as they bring in issues that are out of scope--these eliminations do not require seeing the chain of logic, but rather recognizing issues that should not be discussed.

The argument looks something like this:

~Increase Spending --> Sales Tax 2%
------------------------------------------
~Sales Tax 2% --> Increase Spending

This conclusion represents a contrapositive of the original conditional statement. Answer choice (C) does the same:

~Increase Wages --> ~Increase Prices
-----------------------------------------
Increase Prices --> Increase Wages

Incorrect Answers
(A)
~Rising --> ~Increase Prices
------------------------------
~Increase Prices --> Sell More Homes

** Selling more homes is out of scope!

(B)
Reduce Shoplifting --> More Detectives
---------------------------------------
~More Detectives --> Reduced Profits

** Reduced profits is out of scope!

(D)
Similar Profits --> ~Increase Prices
--------------------------------------
Increase Prices --> Improve Services

** Improved services is out of scope!

(E)
Good Papers --> Good Journalists
------------------------------------
~Good Journalists --> Circulation Falls

** Circulation falling is out scope!

Hope that helps!

I guess mattsherman was lucky that he got the correct answer,the reasoning above is wrong.

The reason why (C) is parallel with the original statement is that they have the same flaw. You diagramed "maintain spending" as "~Increase Wages"（not increase）. However, it actually should be "increase or decrease".

The flaw of the original arguement is that it assuems that because the spending maintain (not increase and not decrease), tax would be 2%, therefore if tax increase then spending increase. The correct Contrapositive should be: tax increase (one possibility of not 2%)----> spending increase or spending decrease.
So the author overlooked a possibility, the increased tax could be the result of other factors, namely the decreased spending.

(C)'s argument has the same flaw: because wage not increase (decrease or maintain)-----> price maintain, therefore price increase---> wage increase. Correct Contrapositive should be : price increase (one possibility of price not maintain)------> wage maintain or wage increase.
Thus, the author of C also overlooks a possibility that even though the price has increased, the wage could have increase or could have stayed the same.

Not native speaker, just thinking about the logic.

You are correct indeed in noting that the logical opposite of maintaining spending at the same level, namely ~maintain, should both included both upward and downward changes.

However, the stim is flawed not because of this, but rather because the author draws a causal relationship from the conditional premise. (note the casual indicator because )

In diagramming

Premie: maintain spending --> tax 2%
conclusion -> Increasing spending(expenditure) causes --> higher tax 2%

the premise supports no ground for drawing such casual relationship.
higher tax could be caused by many other things such as decline in exports, international agreement, but not limited to spending.