Q3 - In Europe, schoolchildren devote

[Shiggins]

I understand how D is correct:

The author believes only if the children participate in calisthenics they can be made psychically fit.

He bases this one the children in Europe who participate in calisthenics assuming that it can not be achieved without calisthenics

I am having trouble ruling out A. I feel that A is just saying that calisthenics is sufficient to be made physically fit. If that is the case then something else can be used to make them physically fit.

My main issue is the way it is worded. The term "by" here signifies the sufficient.
If anyone could clarify or correct me, much appreciated.

[maryadkins]

Yes! Good. When we're just asked what is assumed, we can think of it as a necessary assumption question. So we proceed through this as a necessary assumption question.

(A) is giving you a sufficient way to make children physically fit. But the author doesn't conclude that calisthenics is just sufficient; the author concludes that calisthenics are NECESSARY. ("NA children can be made fit ONLY IF they participate in school calisthenics on a daily basis.") Do you see this difference?

Another problem with (A) is that it refers to "all" children. The author isn't assuming anything about "all" children. The conclusion is only about North American kids.

Hope this helps...

[gplaya123]

I was actually having a hard time eliminating answer choice E.
If I were to negate it, it would say NA children can't learn to eat healthy or exercise. If so, wouldn't this destroy the argument because children can't learn to do calisthenics, which is a form of exercise?

Or am I wrong because I am equating "calisthenics" with exercise & eating healthy even though they are not necessarily the same things?

Also, in regards to answer choice D, I liked it initially but ultimately didn't choose it because of the word "indispensable." It could be assumed that calisthenics may be an important contributor or something but to say it is an "indispensable" or an essential factor seems to be too extreme!
Please help! Thanks!

[WaltGrace1983]

Here are my thoughts...

European children have daily calishtenics programs while Americans do not + America children are weaker, slower, and shorter-winded than Europeans
-->
American children can be made fit only by daily calisthenics

This is an interesting argument that is very CLEARLY flawed. The conclusion says something like this: "IF fit THEN it must have been calishenics. This argument is assuming that #1) calisthenics are the only way to get fit and #2) there is nothing else that the Europeans do that make them fit (perhaps they eat better and like running more?)

(A) Not necessary. We don't need to assume anything about ALL children everywhere, only these North American kids. In addition to this, it seems that the logic is reversed? Someone could correct me if I am wrong but the logic of this seems to be:

IF they do calisthenics --> THEN they are physically fit
(B) Not necessary for the same reasons. We don't need to assume anything about all children. However, there is a bit of an interesting twist here. The answer choice says that these children could be "equally" physically fit. Let's dissect this. This argument is saying that "North American children can be made physically fit only if they do calisthenics on a daily basis." Do we need to assume that all children can be made EQUALLY physically fit? The argument is only talking about becoming "physically fit." It seems that being physically fit requires going over a certain threshold. In other words, Person A can be physically fit but Person B could be supersonic amazingly physically fit and could a billion pushups and doesn't sweat after running 20 miles because it was nothing. Both of these people are "physically fit" no? One is just more physically fit than the other. Therefore, we don't need to say that all these kids have to be EQUALLY physically fit.
(C) While this may be true, it doesn't attack the gap of what is going on here. Overall, it just introduces this new concept of "superior health" but this doesn't really fit in the argument. Where did THAT come from?!
(D) Correct. This is saying that, for Europeans, ~C --> ~Physical fitness.

The contrapositive is IF physical fitness THEN they must have done calisthenics (P --> C).

However, if these calisthenics are NOT an indispensible part of their fitness, then they could essentially be as fit without doing these calisthenics. Therefore, this would make the argument fall apart if we assume the negation.

(E) Out of scope. Eating is not relevent to this argument. We are only talking about daily calisthenics and physical fitness. The answer choice never says that this will lead to physical fitness. If it did, say that the answer choice said "North American children can learn to eat a more nutritious diet to become physically fit" this would actually destroy the argument by providing another avenue to physical fitness.

[deedubbew]

If we use the denial test to negate answer choice E, does the argument not fall apart?

[WaltGrace1983]

If we use the denial test to negate answer choice E, does the argument not fall apart?

I think you have a slightly skewed understanding of the negation test. Let's talk about that first and then we'll talk about the specific problems with (E).

The Negation Test
Don't think that the negation test is used to just make the conclusion independently not work. That is not the goal. The negation test is used to make it so that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. This is a big difference! We aren't exactly trying to find a negation to oppose the conclusion; we are trying to find a negation to oppose the link between the premises and the conclusion. I'll give you an example.

Manhattan students study hard. Therefore, they will get a top score.
Which one of the following is an assumption upon which the argument depends?

(A) At least one Manhattan student will get a top score.
(B) For at least one Manhattan student, studying hard is sufficient to getting a top score.
(C) Anyone who studies will get a good score.
(D) Some students of Manhattan will score high
(E) Studying hard is necessary for achieving a top score.

Let's look at (A) and (B), specifically focusing on their negations.

(A) ~At least one Manhattan student will get a top score.
(B) For ~at least one Manhattan student, studying hard is sufficient to getting a top score.

In other words...

(A) No Manhattan student will get a top score.
(B) For no Manhattan student, studying hard is sufficient to getting a top score.

(A) looks great, right?! There is no way the conclusion could happen if we assume this negation! Well in a way, yes that is correct thinking. However, this is not the task of the negation test. We want to destabilize the link between the premise and the conclusion. This really doesn't speak to the premises at all.
(B) is much better! This is saying that studying hard is not sufficient! Thus, if we are given the idea that Manhattan students study hard THEREFORE they will get a high score and we pair it with the idea that studying hard is NOT sufficient, the argument doesn't really work! Think about it this way...

Manhattan students study hard
→
Manhattan students will get a top score

Look at what is going on here. The argument is saying that studying hard - if you are a Manhattan student at least - will be sufficient to getting a top score. If a Manhattan student studies hard, then that Manhattan student will get a top score. The negation of our hypothetical answer choice (B) would make this so the argument just doesn't follow!

Manhattan students study hard
+
But studying hard is not sufficient to getting a top score
→
Manhattan students will get a top score

Do you see the difference between our hypothetical (A) and (B) here? (A) just destroys the conclusion - not our task. (B) makes it so that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises - this is our task. This little mindset shift will make NA questions a bit easier when you are thrown for a loop.

It seems that the old tendencies ring true here. Often, though perhaps not always, the correct answer will tie ideas in from the premises and the conclusion to make it all fit very nicely. Use this to your advantage if you get stuck but definitely don't rely on it.

PT3-S4-Q12
(E) in addition to the reasons indirectly presented above, (E) is also wrong because we don't need to assume anything about eating a nutritious diet. This "nutrition" stuff really came out of left field and we simply don't need to care about it at all.
(C) is wrong for similiar reasons, we don't want to associate exercise/fitness with health. We are just talking about exercise/fitness here and this doesn't necessarily equate to "healthy" in LSAT world
(A) and (B) are wrong because of the "all" children primarily. We don't need to assume anything about "all" children.

Hope that helps!

[tommywallach]

Great explanation on the NT, Walt!

[ncesomonu]

I have a question. Would answer choice A) really be diagrammed as:

Daily Cali.----> All Children physically fit.

I diagrammed it the other way,

All Children physically fit---->Daily Cali and then negated it, to show NOT all children physically fit----> all children physically fit.


Why would we diagram it the first way? And how would I know (for the future) how to diagram this kind of phrase. I was thrown because "all" typically introduces the sufficient.

Any help would be appreciated!

[civnetn]

Drilling Necessary Assumption I'm starting to see more logical tools, (in this case an indicator), within the questions that provide an easy tip-off.

I got the right answer but if I had noticed the conditional nature of the conclusion ( _ if _ ) I probably would have solved this faster.

Here's why D) is 100% obviously correct.

Conclusion: If P (Physically Fit) --> C (Calisthenics) Basically, the only way you can be fit is if you take calisthenics.

Why? Well backtracking through the stimulus we see that apparently European kids are more physically fit than NA kids and they take calisthenics.

The author is trying to draw a conclusion out of a correlation. The correlation between European kids being strong and calisthenics. You can't drawn valid conclusions out of correlations. So for the argument to be valid, we have to give the author the benefit of the doubt and assume he/she isn't arguing out of correlation but instead out of some causal conditional premise we aren't privy to.

And the only conditional premise that supports the conclusion is P --> C

Here calisthenics is necessary for physical fitness of European kids. They HAVE to have it. Otherwise they won't be fit. If the missing conditional premise was:

C-->P

Then something else could possible have been responsible for the increased physical fitness of European children.

So yeah. The thought process should be:

1.) Oh look theirs a conditional in the conclusion.
2.) Wait, there was only a correlation in the premise. Not a causal relationship.
3.) I'm looking for a causal relationship/conditional in the answer choice.