#23 - Film preservation requires transferring old movies

[LSAT2018]

Is it possible to simplify this in terms of conditional reasoning?
Premise: Not Transferred → Not Preserved
Conclusion: Earliest Films (Some) → Not Preserved
Assumption: Earliest Films (Some) → Not Transferred

And as for Answer (C), can this be directly eliminated because it refers to films that have been transferred, whereas we are concerned with those that have not been? Because this refers to 'not many' films, we do not know whether the rest has been transferred. That all of the films from the earliest years has been transfers is entirely possible, right? But we simply don't know from the information given in this answer.

[Brook Miscoski]

PB410,

I do not recommend the rephrase you suggest.

"Some" includes any non-zero option. You are incorrect that "some" means "not all"-- it never means "not all" unless that is clearly established by context or explicitly stated.

"Not many" is considerably more restrictive than "some." Therefore, you should not rephrase "not many" to be "some."

I suggest that you go back and review number words and logical opposites.

[Brook Miscoski]

LSAT2018,

I don't see a reason to engage in conditional reasoning for this stimulus. The conclusion is that at least one of the earliest Hollywood films will not be preserved, but we don't know anything about which films are currently deteriorating. (D) is necessary to establish that at least one of the earliest Hollywood films is one of the deteriorating films.

However, if you did it that way,

1st sentence uses "requires," so Preservation Transfer; No Transfer No Preservation
2d sentence triggers the contrapositive. Since the clock will run out with some films not transferred, we are sure that some films will not be preserved. I would not express this as its own conditional statement; instead, it is a specific application of the contrapositive.
3rd sentence concludes that those films are the earliest films.
Assumption: We don't know anything about which films still need to be transferred.

That might be slightly different than you did it, or your shorthand might represent the same approach I took. However, again, I wouldn't have mapped out any conditional statements to do this.

[blade21cn]

A quick question. With regard to (C), what is the negation of "not many"? Is it "many" by simply dropping the "not"?

Or, logically speaking, "not many" sounds like even fewer than "many," which is basically "many." In that case, the negation of "not many" seems to be "none."

Thanks!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi blade21cn!

The negation of "not many" would simply be "many." When taking logical opposites, it really is generally as simple as adding or removing a "not"!

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey