#15 - Counselor: Hagerle sincerely apologized to the

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen—PR. The correct answer choice is (C)

Hagerly told the same lie to both the physician and the counselor. Then Hagerly offered a sincere
apology to the physician, but did not sincerely apologize to the counselor. Hagerly now owes the
counselor a sincere apology as well (says the counselor).

The counselor’s statements are followed by a Strengthen—Principle question, so the right answer
choice will provide a principle that strengthens the claim that the counselor is due the same sincere
apology as the physician.

Answer choice (A): It’s nice that apologies are good, but this does not provide much support for
the specific claim that the counselor is owed a sincere apology based on the fact that the physician
got one. Also, there is no way to know, based on the information provided in the stimulus, whether
Hagerly is even capable of making such a sincere apology to the counselor.

Answer choice (B): This choice doesn’t help the counselor’s case, because there is no way to
know whether neither party is due an apology, or both are—all we know is that Hagerly decided to
apologize to the physician.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice, because if this principle is applied to
Hagerly’s actions, Hagerly owes the counselor an apology as well.

Answer choice (D): This choice does not help to justify the counselor’s argument that the same
sincere apology is owed to both parties. Since there is no way to know whether or not Hagerly
is capable of a sincere apology to the counselor, this principle cannot necessarily be applied to
Hagerly’s situation, and this cannot be the answer choice that most strengthens the counselor’s
argument.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice provides that it should be either all or nothing: a person
should apologize to no one or everyone. But regardless of what should have happened, Hagerly
apologized to the physician. We still don’t know whether Hagerly is even capable of sincerely
apologizing to everyone who was told Hagerly’s lie. The relevant question is whether a sincere
apology is due to the counselor based on the fact that the physician received a sincere apology for
having been told the same lie.

[rneuman123@gmail.com]

I got this question right during the test, but looking at it now I see how similar b and c are; how easy it would be to make a mistake and choose b. What exactly makes b incorrect?

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi rneuman,

The thing wrong with B is that we don't actually know that the physician was owed an apology; we only know that Hagerle did apologize. Does that make sense?

[rneuman123@gmail.com]

It does. Thank you!

[Paola]

What exactly is wrong with answer E? Is it the use of "sincerely?"

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Paola,

Good question. It's not specifically "sincerely" that disqualifies answer choice (E). Rather it's the fact that (E) fails to match the conditional structure we're looking for in the credited answer choice. Essentially, this problem is a somewhat abstruse test of conditional reasoning principles. Note the structure:

• Hagerly tells the same lie to two people, a physician and a counselor.
• Hagerly sincerely apologizes to physician.
• Conclusion: The counselor claims to be owed an apology because a sincere apologie is required to anyone who has been told the same lie.

Our task is to strengthen this conclusion. How can we do so? We need a statement that will demonstrate that given the circumstances, the counselor is owed a sincere apology. In other words, in this formulation, an apology to the counselor will be the necessary outcome of some sufficient condition, symbolically:

• circumstances in premises sincere apology owed to counselor

We could accomplish this task in a couple different ways; basically, anything that has happened so far could, in principle, serve as a sufficient condition to guarantee the counselor is owed an apology. For instance:

• Anyone who has been told a lie entitled to sincere apology
• One person receives sincere apology for a lie everyone else who was told lie also entitled to a sincere apology
• Anyone who tells a lie must offer a sincere apology to everyone to whom this lie was told

Note that each of these possibilities would do a lot to strengthen our conclusion. The credited response, (C), matches the second of these possibilities.

Much of what's wrong in the other answer choices is a failure to adhere to this conditional structure. For instance, in (E) we have:

• Can't apologize to everyone Shouldn't apologize to anyone
  Contrapositive: If you should apologize to someone Then you should be able to apologize to everyone

This answer choice does more to justify the contention that Hagerle shouldn't have apologized to the physician! That's not really what we're after here. We want to show that given that Hagerle did apologize to the physician, the counselor is owed an apology too.

I hope this helps!

[Paola]

Thank you so much! That conditional explanation really helped. I'm actually focusing on conditionals this weekend, so this explanation comes at a good time! Thanks again.

[Dancingbambarina]

There is not much on nested conditionals. Answer choice B is a nested conditional I am weary to attack.

Is there any pamphlet or table that is helpful with nested conditionals? Please help.

Thank you so much.

[Adam Tyson]

To my knowledge, we don't have any materials that are focused exclusively on nested conditionals. There are a number of discussions in many threads in this Forum, and at least one in our Blog. But keep it basic for a minute and ask yourself what it means when you have a conditional statement that is a condition in a larger conditional statement. For example:

If I go out with my friends, then I'll have a few beers, unless I am the designated driver.

Now, we could diagram this as:

I Go Out [Have Beers Designated Driver]

or:

I Go Out [Designated Driver Have Beers]

In either case, this means that the rule is applied when I go out with my friends. If I go out alone, or with family, or if I stay home, then the rule simply doesn't apply and can be ignored. But when I go out with my friends, the rule is activated. Then what's true? Well, if I am not the designated driver, I will have a few beers. If I don't have a few beers, I must be the designated driver.

We can turn this into a slightly different conditional, not nested, that might be more to your liking:

I Go Out
and           Have Beers
Designated Driver

(In other words, if I go out with friends and I am not the designated driver, then I will have a few beers)

Don't make nested conditionals harder in your mind than they have to be. It's just "if this thing is true, then a conditional rule is activated." And try translating them into simple, easy to understand relationships.

[Dancingbambarina]

To my knowledge, we don't have any materials that are focused exclusively on nested conditionals. There are a number of discussions in many threads in this Forum, and at least one in our Blog. But keep it basic for a minute and ask yourself what it means when you have a conditional statement that is a condition in a larger conditional statement. For example:

If I go out with my friends, then I'll have a few beers, unless I am the designated driver.

Now, we could diagram this as:

I Go Out [Have Beers Designated Driver]

or:

I Go Out [Designated Driver Have Beers]

In either case, this means that the rule is applied when I go out with my friends. If I go out alone, or with family, or if I stay home, then the rule simply doesn't apply and can be ignored. But when I go out with my friends, the rule is activated. Then what's true? Well, if I am not the designated driver, I will have a few beers. If I don't have a few beers, I must be the designated driver.

We can turn this into a slightly different conditional, not nested, that might be more to your liking:

I Go Out
and           Have Beers
Designated Driver

(In other words, if I go out with friends and I am not the designated driver, then I will have a few beers)

Don't make nested conditionals harder in your mind than they have to be. It's just "if this thing is true, then a conditional rule is activated." And try translating them into simple, easy to understand relationships.

Thank you so much Adam. You are a MASSIVE help. I'll take note and practice. I have an arbitrary question and then a general one please, that may seem mundane but will help me with deeper insight into conditionality.

In the book, "No robot can think" is a conditional. Why then is this common construction not treated as a conditional in the LSAT when it's a sufficient condition connected to a necessary condition "No robot can think if we build them badly".

In this, we just say: Build Robots badly ----> No Robot can think

My point is that we don't treat this as a nested conditional. Why?

My last question is: Are nested consitionals normally just 3 variables? Have there been instances of more?

Thanks so much