#10 - Only people who are willing to compromise should

[evelineliu]

Hi Annabelle,

If we diagram (A), it looks like this: If ~undergo mediation --> sure one's correct.

This statement is not deducible from the stimulus, and you can rule it out because you couldn't find support for it in your diagrams. The phrase about being sure that one's position is correct does not share any terms with any other statement, so it cannot be combined with the others to make deductions. You cannot assume that mediation and litigation are mutually exclusive or that there aren't any other alternatives, such as simply not pursuing the matter. Therefore, "not undergo mediation" can't be equated with "litigate."

Best,
Eveline

[gleasone28]

Hello!

I am struggling with the indicators in statement #1 and statement #2.

In statement #1, I noticed that it read 'Only people who', which I identified as a sufficient statement because 'people who' is listed as a sufficient indicator in the Sufficient/Necessary Indicator chart (class book page 2-8). Similarly with statement #2, I noticed that it read 'only when', which I identified as a sufficient statement because 'when' is listed as a sufficient indicator in the Sufficient/Necessary Indicator chart (class book page 2-8).

I realize that 'only' is listed as a necessary indicator in the Sufficient/Necessary Indicator chart, and I recall from a podcast episode involving Conditional Reasoning that Dave and Jon mentioned that the term 'only' can trump whatever follows to turn that statement into a necessary statement. Example, the term 'if' is a sufficient indicator, but 'only if' is a necessary indicator.

I just wanted to clarify if we should always turn any statement that includes 'only' into a necessary statement, despite whether or not a sufficient indicator follows?

I am also trying to practice understanding the relationships between the statements more, because I know that the class book mentions that understanding the relationships between sufficient and necessary conditions allows you to get most difficult problems correct, rather than just pure memorization of the indicators. This could also be why I diagramed statement #1 and statement #2 incorrectly the first time (I had the sufficient and necessary conditions reversed). Thank you!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi gleasone,

There are MANY situations where you see "only" in conjunction with a term/phrase that, by itself, would be a sufficient condition indicator. A short list:

• Only if

• Only when

• Only people who

• Only someone who

• Only those

In all of these instances, assuming the entire sentence is creating a conditional relationship, the "only" trumps and makes the following condition the necessary condition. I say "assuming the sentence is creating a conditional relationship" because we always have to be sensitive to the entire statement and not just single words or phrases. Is there a chance LSAC could use "only" in a way that didn't make it a necessary condition indicator? Sure. But when the above phrases are used, and the sentence is clearly establishing a conditional relationship between two (or more) occurrences, the "only" is the trump card identifying a necessary condition.

Thinking more broadly about the meaning of the first two sentences in this question, it makes sense to identify the condition marked off by the "only people who" (or the "only when") as something necessary. Who should undergo mediation? ONLY those who have a willingness to compromise. So IF you're someone who should do mediation, then you MUST be willing to compromise. If you aren't willing to compromise, you shouldn't do mediation (because ONLY those willing to compromise should do it). All those little variations I'm giving you show the necessity of being willing to compromise: it's the necessary condition for going to mediation.

Who should pursue litigation? ONLY those who are sure their position is correct. So if you pursue litigation, then you MUST be sure your position is correct. If you weren't sure your position was correct, you shouldn't pursue litigation (because ONLY those sure their positions are correct should do it). Again, the little variations show the necessity of being sure your position is correct: it's the necessary condition for pursuing litigation.

I hope this helps!

[ashleymay4]

Hello, I was a little confused with this question on how we know the last sentence was also a conditional statement that said, "People whose conflicts are based on ideology are unwilling to compromise" because I did not see any conditional indicators. Would it just be because there were two before it? I had answered A, as I thought the last sentence would not be included in the conditional statements. Thank you!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Ashley,

If you look at our list of sufficient condition indicators, you will see the words "people who" on that list. (This list is found in lesson 2 of The PowerScore LSAT Course and in chapter 6 of The Logical Reasoning Bible.) One important point is that while these lists cover most of the conditional reasoning that appears on the LSAT, they are not comprehensive. There are many variations of these words, and it would probably be impossible to cover every possible way to convey conditional reasoning in English.

Here, "people whose conflicts are based on ideology" is a variation of "people who." For example, they could have written the sentence "People who have conflicts based on ideology ...."

In another LSAT question, they use the words "fitness consultants who smoke" which you'd have to realize is just another variation of "people who."

Ultimately, you have to ask yourself whether a sentence is conveying the idea that one thing is sufficient to tell you that another thing must happen. If you can reword the sentence into an "if, then" sentence, that's usually a good indicator.

Here, for example, you could reword the last sentence to "If people's conflicts are based on ideology, then they are unwilling to compromise."