Q9 - Manuscripts written by first-time

[wayne_palmer10]

I know that this is a parallel reasoning question, but I can't seem to figure out by (B) is right. Is it necessary to parallel the "except" in the stimulus with the "unless" in the correct answer choice? That might have thrown me off. Any help would be great. Thanks.

[aileenann]

This question asks us to match the pattern of reasoning from the original argument. This should involve a 2 part system to answer the question. First, you'll want to express the original argument as abstractly as possible. Then you'll want to do the same for the answer choice until you find the one that matches your original argument.

So let's start with the original argument. I'd rewrite it as follows:

F.A. generally no X unless C.F.A.
Therefore my F.A. unlikely to be Y since not C.F.A.

With this general structure in mind (including the sneaky switch from criterion X to criterion Y) let's take a look at the answer choices.

(A) C not X unless I UP.
I haven't even finished diagramming this argument, but I can already rule it out. There are too many different ideas here (C, X, I, UP) and additionally C and I are not overlapping the way F.A. and C.F.A. are in the original.

(B) B usually X unless B2E.
Therefore B will probably be X because it is not B2E.
Now this looks promising. In particular, though it doesn't have the tricky X to Y change I highlighted in the original, B and B2E are overlapping, which is the kind of relationship I want between these two variables.

(C) CMZ are X. TM is CMZ. Therefore TM will likely be X.
In this one, I just don't have a second group of things to overlap here with CMZ. Since it's missing that "overlap" relationship, this is also not the answer.

(D) Now that the issue is getting easier to spot, I won't even diagram this argument. Children and spouses don't overlap, so this one is also missing the overlap relationship distinctive in the original argument.

(E) This answer choice has the same problem as (C) and (D) and is also thus not the answer.

Ultimately, (B) doesn't look identical to the original (as I highlighted above) *but* it looks a whole lot letter than the rest. By process of elimination, (B) is our answer

[mcrittell]

Any other thoughts on how to diagram this properly?

[sge4]

Any other thoughts on how to diagram this properly?

I'm not great at doing parallel reasoning questions quickly and I also get tripped up by these abbreviations at times. When I revisited this question, though, I tried to keep it simple and just use X and Y. It helped me understand why (B) is correct. Here's how I did it.

Stimulus

Let's say:
X = Manuscripts get serious attention
Y = Be a celebrity
So:
For manuscript to get serious attention, you need to be a celebrity.
(X --> Y)

But:
I'm not a celebrity, so my manuscript prob. won't be taken seriously.
(~Y --> ~X)

Note: "Get serious attention" and "taken seriously" are interchangeable for the purposes of this example. Language in parallel reasoning Q's often allowed to be less precise than in other Q-types.

In other words, we're dealing with a contrapositive statement. That's what we need to look for in the answer choices.

It's really down to (B) and (C). So similarly...

(B)

X = Fruit salad w/banana to be not boring
Y = Has 2+ exotic fruits
So:
For a fruit salad w/banana to be not boring, it has to have 2+ exotic fruits.
(X --> Y)

But:
Doesn't have 2+ exotic fruits, so this fruit salad w/banana will probably be boring.
(~Y --> ~X)

This is the contrapositive, so it's the right answer.

Note: Saying not boring in X keeps the logical structure, so that ~X = For fruit salad to be boring. Sorry if confusing!

Just to diagram (C) out...

(C)

X = Only zoning issues on agenda
Y = Meeting prob. poorly attended
So:
If only zoning issues on agenda, meeting prob. poorly attended.
(X --> Y)

But:
Only zoning issues on agenda (Thursday's mtg.), so prob. poorly attended.
(X --> Y)

This is just a restatement of the argument and not the contrapositive we need.

Hope that helps!

[demetri.blaisdell]

sge4,

I think you've done a great job of diagramming this. Ultimately, you are looking for the answer choice that matches the logical structure.

If you were choosing between (B) and (C), I wouldn't even diagram. (C) doesn't have the unless term.

(A) has an unless clause but it is satisfied (the incumbent has become unpopular).

(D) presents a choice between two options. If it's not the first, it's the second. It's not the first. No unless clause, so ditch it.

(E) has an unless clause but instead of being given the information about whether or not it's been satisfied, it is inferred from the consequence.

Anyways, I thought I'd add one more way of thinking about this problem. There's a lot here, though, so my explanation is just one of several perfectly valid ways of thinking about it.

Demetri

[sge4]

This is really helpful and way faster than my diagramming. But when questions are convoluted like this one, how did you know that the unless clause was the linchpin and not matching up the contapositive logical structure?

sge4,

I think you've done a great job of diagramming this. Ultimately, you are looking for the answer choice that matches the logical structure.

If you were choosing between (B) and (C), I wouldn't even diagram. (C) doesn't have the unless term.

(A) has an unless clause but it is satisfied (the incumbent has become unpopular).

(D) presents a choice between two options. If it's not the first, it's the second. It's not the first. No unless clause, so ditch it.

(E) has an unless clause but instead of being given the information about whether or not it's been satisfied, it is inferred from the consequence.

Anyways, I thought I'd add one more way of thinking about this problem. There's a lot here, though, so my explanation is just one of several perfectly valid ways of thinking about it.

Demetri

[esnanees]

[quote="sge4"][quote="mcrittell"]Any other thoughts on how to diagram this properly?[/quote]

I'm not great at doing parallel reasoning questions quickly and I also get tripped up by these abbreviations at times. When I revisited this question, though, I tried to keep it simple and just use X and Y. It helped me understand why (B) is correct. Here's how I did it.

[b]Stimulus[/b]

Let's say:
X = Manuscripts get serious attention
Y = Be a celebrity
So:
For manuscript to get serious attention, you need to be a celebrity.
(X --> Y)

But:
I'm not a celebrity, so my manuscript prob. won't be taken seriously.
(~Y --> ~X)

Note: "Get serious attention" and "taken seriously" are interchangeable for the purposes of this example. Language in parallel reasoning Q's often allowed to be less precise than in other Q-types.

In other words, we're dealing with a contrapositive statement. That's what we need to look for in the answer choices.

It's really down to (B) and (C). So similarly...

[b](B)[/b]

X = Fruit salad w/banana to be [i]not [/i]boring
Y = Has 2+ exotic fruits
So:
For a fruit salad w/banana to be not boring, it has to have 2+ exotic fruits.
(X --> Y)

But:
Doesn't have 2+ exotic fruits, so this fruit salad w/banana will probably [i]be [/i]boring.
(~Y --> ~X)

This is the contrapositive, so it's the right answer.

Note: Saying [i]not [/i]boring in X keeps the logical structure, so that ~X = For fruit salad to [i]be [/i]boring. Sorry if confusing!

Just to diagram (C) out...

[b](C)[/b]

X = Only zoning issues on agenda
Y = Meeting prob. poorly attended
So:
If only zoning issues on agenda, meeting prob. poorly attended.
(X --> Y)

But:
Only zoning issues on agenda (Thursday's mtg.), so prob. poorly attended.
(X --> Y)

This is just a restatement of the argument and not the contrapositive we need.

Hope that helps![/quote]
I am confused with your diagram for B.I tot with unless the sufficient is always negated. So I was thinking: Bananas is ordinarily boring unless it contains two or more exotic fruits as Not B then E so if its not boring then E.
Please correct me if i am wrong with my interpretation.

[krishna.kilambi]

I was looking for something that concludes with word "unlikely". Should I not expect it ?

[JohnC513]

I know this forum is quite old but I wanted to revisit it...

I got this question correct but I did hesitate on it a bit.

The reason for my hesitation lied in correctly interpreting the second sentence of the stimulus.

The first sentence was easy since I saw the "except" which put whatever followed after it in the necessary condition.

But I when evaluated the second sentence, I wasn't sure off-the-top of my head which part goes in the sufficient or necessary condition. The only reason I correctly put the pieces together was because I read the quesiton stem and saw it asked for parallel reasoning (not flawed parallel reasoning). So that made me think this was a contrapositive.

I don't want to rely on that question stem all the time...so if you were to break down the second sentence in terms of conditional logic, how would you do so if you don't see obvious indicators?

[Laura Damone]

Hi there!

A statement doesn't have to be conditional itself to be part of a conditional argument. Two of the most common conditional argument structures on the LSAT are the application of principle structure:

X --> Y
X
-----( therefore)
Y

And the contrapositive principle structure:

X --> Y
-Y
-----------
-X

In each of these structures, a conditional statement is given, and then a fact is provided that fulfills one of the conditions. Another fact, that fulfills the other condition, is concluded.

So when I see that second sentence that says the manuscript in question is unlikely to be taken seriously for I am a first time author that's not a celebrity, I see that as a two statements, each fulfilling a condition from the first conditional statement: the conclusion (unlikely to get serious atten), and the premise, introduced by "for" (1st time author that isn't a celeb). The diagram for that structure looks like this:

Gets serious atten --> 1st time author is celeb
- 1st time author is celeb
----------------
- Gets serious atten

A classic contrapositive structure! Hope this helps!