#18 - Fund-raiser: A charitable organization rarely gives it

[testtakernce]

Hello Powerscore,

So I just completed this question on the Dec 2008 LSAT. I got the correct question E through POE. I was stuck between answer choices B and E, but chose E because answer choice B began with the statement " Most charities that have increased the amount."

We aren't really concerned with what charities have already done, rather, we want are concerned with what they probably could do if they give the right to vote. However, looking online for explanations, I found that another way I could've eliminated B was because it is a sufficient conclusion, and the answer is calling for a necc. conclusion.

I didn't see that when I reviewed the problem. My inability to distinguish between necc and suff. conclusions is a reoccurring problem that I face and has caused me to get a number of questions wrong.

In short, I would appreciate if someone could please walk me through why answer choice is sufficient and not necc. Secondly, if someone could please show me the proper way to diagram the conclusion and answer choice B, I would GREATLY appreciate it!

I diagrammed B as: make potential donors feel a greater emotional connection to the charity---->increase amount of money from donations.

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Testtaker,

Thanks for the question! There's several different aspects of your question that I want to address, so this may feel a bit scattered. Please bear with me

First, let's talk about the sufficient and necessary elements here. I think that you've gotten a bit confused with general conditional reasoning vs how Assumption and Justify questions work. We know this is an Assumption question. Assumption questions, by definition, ask you for something the author considers necessary for the conclusion to be valid (and this is why the Assumption Negation technique works on these questions). So, in looking at every Assumption question, you are always looking for this general necessary idea; it's not something special to this particular question. Thus, when you mention "another way I could've eliminated B," that approach would always work in a question like this—its universal to Assumption questions. Does that make sense? Please let me know, because this is critically important to understanding these questions. Also, if you are in one of our courses or if you have the LSAT Logical Reasoning Bible, let me know, and I'll refer you to some specific areas to look up to gain more info about how all this works.

Next, the sufficiency idea is worth examining as well, because in a Justify question the correct answer is sufficient to prove the conclusion.This is why someone would talk about sufficient and necessary ideas whenever an Assumption or Justify question was under discussion. This doesn't mean that the correct answer actually contains conditional reasoning or conditional indicators, just that it works in a way that serves as sufficient to justify the conclusion. Again, that's not special to this particular question (in fact, the language used by the question stem in any Justify question will convey that the answer choice is sufficient to prove the conclusion). Let me know how you feel about that, and then if you have any of our materials, I can refer you to some useful areas that address these points.

Ok, next you mention that "My inability to distinguish between necc and suff. conclusions is a reoccurring problem that I face..." Can you tell me a bit more about this? Is this something that occurs in just the most challenging questions, or is it the easier ones too? Does it occur when there are no indicators present, or does it occur in just about any situation? There's actually a number of posts I've made on this forum alone that I can refer you to, so let me know and I'll do my best to help out.

Last, let's talk about LR diagramming for a second. Diagramming is a really useful tool, and there are times when you have to know how to diagram quickly and efficiently. But, diagramming is also something that can't be applied to every problem and is often overused, and there are many instances of problems that contain conditional reasoning where I wouldn't diagram them. When I first read through this particular problem, I didn't consider diagramming any part of it. There's a big leap between the premises and conclusion (we go from talking about an emotional connection to increasing the amount of money), and once I saw that leap and saw that it was an Assumption question, I immediately began seeking the answer that matched that jump, which is (E). Answer choice (E) is indeed necessary for the conclusion to be true, but that conditional element is present in abstract structural terms, not concrete conditional diagrams (if anything, I actually feel like there's more causality here).

When I looked at (B), I had some of the same reactions that you had: I'm not as worried about what most charities have done, because what's already occurred isn't essential to the author's argument; it's about what most charities could probably do. This is borne out by the fact that if you negate answer choice (B), it doesn't attack the author's argument. I didn't diagram (B), and I wouldn't diagram it in hindsight.

So then, why is (B) being described in terms of being sufficient? Well, I can't speak for the author of the explanation you read, but I'll take a guess at what he or she was thinking in saying that. Answer choice (B) does strengthen the conclusion and help the argument. That said, I personally wouldn't say that this answer is sufficient to justify the conclusion, and the explanation you read was probably being a bit fast and loose with terms. A Justify question is kind of a "perfect" or "super" Strengthen question, and so, if we were to put it into conditional terms, an answer that strengthens the conclusion is heading towards the sufficiency side, and I'd surmise the writer was just referencing that sphere of answers when he or she said that. But this isn't a sufficient answer under the terms we use for Justify/Assumption questions, and your writer probably didn't mean for that to be interpreted in strict terms.

So, there's a lot of different things floating around here. Please take a look at what I've written above, and if you can provide me with some additional information, I should be able to help you out even further. Thanks!

[testtakernce]

Thanks so much for the thorough response, I will read through it once again to answer all the questions you asked so you can have a better idea of what exactly I'm asking. But to your question of when I'm having trouble with conditional statements, I would say I experience trouble typically when a) indicator words aren't present, and b) the cases where indicator words are present, but the wording is a tad confusing (at least to me).

For example, to my point for a),

On PT 26 #21 "The companies that are" I had a difficult time diagramming a sentence without indicators. The premise "It is expensive to teach people software that demands the memorization of unfamiliar commands"
I diagrammed this statement as: expensive--->teach ppl software that demands.

Upon review I realized that this diagram did not get me to the correct answer (which was the gap if successful then it must be bought by prime purchasers; however, the reverse of the diagram above, teach ppl software that demands---> expensive, got me to this gap..

How would you gauge that "expensive" is the nec? Is it because you can reason that if it demands the memorization of unfamiliar commands it must be expensive?
In short, what's a general rule of thumb to diagramming when indicator words aren't present (like the question above).

To my point b), I recently did a problem from PT 3, S2, #3, Answer Choice A: (All children can be made physically fit by daily calisthenics.

Would I diagram this as children---> made physically fit by c? Or is the "by calisthenics" in sufficient.



Lastly, I am using the LR Bible so any pointers to Nec. and Justify the Conclusion would be greatly appreciated!!!

[BethRibet]

Hi Testtaker,

Thanks for the detailed response. Yes, in your first example, you actually did have the conditions reversed. You could rephrase the original sentence along the lines of:

"If the software demands memorization of unfamiliar commands, then it is expensive to teach people."
Framed like this, it's clear that the first condition is sufficient, the second necessary, accompanied by the indicators "if" and "then". In terms of how to know how to do this, or that it is correct, mostly you just need to be focusing on the meaning of the sentence. The original sentence for instance, cannot accurately be rephrased as: "If it is expensive to teach... then it must demand memorization..." -- because the original sentence doesn't suggest or indicate that this would always or necessarily be true.

To identify a necessary condition, you want to ask yourself "which condition is required, for the other condition to be possible". The one that's required, is necessary. Or alternately, "which condition must be true, if the other condition is met." In this scenario, the one that must be true is necessary.

On your second example, either phrasing would be fine -- my general rule is keep it simple, as long as you can remember what your abbreviations or acronyms reference.

Hope this helps!
Beth

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Testtaker,

Thanks for posting this extra info! I really appreciate it.

Diagramming is a really seductive tool. It makes things nicely black and white, and since the LSAT is a test where it's hard to get perfect clarity, the desire to want to diagram everything (or many things, at least) is understandable. But diagramming is just a tool; it's only there to help you understand what was said. What I feel like I'm seeing here is something that I've seen many times before, and that's a case where you are over-diagramming and relying on it too much. You appear to be trying to diagram statements that really shouldn't be diagrammed, and based on what you are saying you are understanding what you read, so you really didn't even need to diagram them in the first place.

As I said above, diagramming is a tool to increase your understanding, but here it's slowing you down and causing confusion. So, my first piece of advice would be—at least for a while—to stop diagramming almost entirely and instead focus on simply making sure you understood what the author said. I bet you'll immediately feel more relaxed (no more pressure to get that diagram right!) and start performing a bit better.

Does this mean that I'm suddenly anti-diagramming? Haha no, definitely not! It has its uses, and there are times when you really want and need to diagram. But, none of the cases you are describing above fall into that category, and instead I feel like you are trying to force the diagram where it's not needed. While that may sound like a big problem, it's actually not You can easily implement changes to your approach (such as the temporary one I described above), and as you see the positive results, it becomes easier to step away from over-reliance on diagramming.

Ok, so to summarize, here's what I want you to do. First, when you get a chance, read through this article I wrote on When to Diagram: http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/bid/333 ... To-Diagram. Second, I want you to implement the LR "diagramming break" I described above. Just try it for 2 or 3 days, and then come back and tell me how that went for you (and, if you run across an LR question that you feel absolutely has to be diagrammed, go ahead and diagram it; we're trying to diagram less, but if it's needed, then it's needed and it's ok to diagram). You might notice that I haven't sent you to read up more on conditionality just yet. I might do that after this, but I want to see how the above steps work first.

Please let me know how that sounds. Thanks!

[testtakernce]

Thanks so much Dave and Beth for your helpful responses. Dave, I will practice the no diagramming method and get back to you by the end of the week.

Have a good one and thanks again!

[student987]

Hello! I have a clarification question on the explanations above, on why B is wrong: are answer choices about past events or alternative/specific contexts ever correct answers on Assumption (necessary) questions?

For example, say we have a necessary assumption question. Say the conclusion of the stimulus is: "A leads to B." And say that there is an answer choice that says "Many A has led to B" (or that says "A leads to B in America").

That answer choice would never be correct, right? Since A having led to B in the past or in America is not necessary for A leading to B?

(Or is it that answer choices about past events or alternative contexts are only wrong in necessary assumption questions where the stimulus's conclusion is a prediction of future events?)

Please let me know if this is not worded clearly! I was just really tripped up on (B), so I'm wondering how to never get something similar wrong.


[quote="Dave Killoran"]
When I looked at (B), I had some of the same reactions that you had: I'm not as worried about what most charities have done, because what's already occurred isn't essential to the author's argument; it's about what most charities could probably do.

[Adam Tyson]

Time for that classic lawyer answer, student987 - "it depends." It depends on the specifics of the argument whether there are any assumptions about the past or not. How about this case:

"I have not yet been accepted to Harvard Law School. Therefore, they must have found my application to be lacking in some respect."

What did I assume? I assume that I sent an application to Harvard, and that they received it, and that if they had not found my application to be lacking then they would have accepted me by now.

Avoid blanket rules about what the answers cannot contain, because context will matter in making those analyses. It was true in this case that information about what has or has happened in the past doesn't matter, because it is only about whether a link currently exists between the premises and the conclusion, but in another case that link may be about the past.

[chian9010]

For this question, can I diagram as a cause- effect relationship?

DI - direct influential
EC - emotional connection
RTV - right to vote


Premise: The inability to directly influence how charities spend contributions makes potential donors feel less of an emotional connection to the charity

No DI (cause) -> No EC (effect)
(DI (cause) -> EC (effect)) (Note: this is cause-effect diagram so there is no mistakenly negation problem)

Conclusion: Most charities should probably increase the amount of money they raise through donations by giving donors the right to vote

RTV (cause) -> increase $ (effect)


Assumption:

RTV -> DI -> EC -> increase $
At first, I thought the assumption should be that we have to assume right to vote can have a direct influence on donor. (RTV -> DI) However, there is no such answer options.

Then I think that I have to find the answer choice that assumes emotional connection can cause increase donation money (EC -> increase $).

However, I feel like that both B and E can be diagrammed as EC -> increase $.

Does it mean that my diagram is wrong?

I noticed that B) talks about past events while E) talks about a rule/principle that "CAN" makes the effect. Is this really the only difference between the two answer choices and the only way to make the call that E is right and B is wrong?

In addition, after I reread the questions again and again, I think E) is very vague. If E says the emotional connection potential donors feel to a charity can have a positive/increase effect on the amount of money that charity raises though donations, then I think E is a solid answer. However, by merely indicates EC can "affect" the donation, it is not clear whether it is a "reverse effect," or "positive effect."

B, on the other hand, indicates clearly that the effect is "increased"

[Brook Miscoski]

Chian,

The stimulus does contain causal elements. Also, a causal element is the missing link. The stimulus establishes that voting affects the emotional connection to the charity, and then leaps to the idea that voting will yield more money. The missing link is that emotional connection affects donations. Thus, causally, you would say:

Voting causes emotional connection causes donations.

The correct choice, (E), supplies that causal connection without stating more.

You are correct that (B) also hits on that connection. This is where you consider that an assumption must be essential to the stimulus. Thus, this is a time for the negation test.

Negating (E), you get "emotional connection cannot affect donations," which would ruin the stimulus. That means that (E) is essential.

Negating (B), you get "most charities increase donations without making donors feel a greater emotional connection." This does not harm the argument at all--it only suggests that there is more than one way to increase donations. Remember, the stimulus argues that voting (increasing emotional connection) is one way of increasing donations, not that it is the only way of increasing donations.