#18 - Editorial: It is clear that what is called "health

[lsat2016]

Thank you for your explanation.

How do I differentiate between definitions and conditional reasoning? For example, for the June 2007 PT LR 2 Q23, I diagrammed the statements as

Increase well being -> morally right

decrease well being <->morally wrong because the first statement is a "is" statement and the second statement explicitly says "if and only if". For this instance, should I stick to the -> arrow for the first statement or draw a <-> because it's a definition?

Thank you!

[Clay Cooper]

Hi Lsat2016,

Your diagramming is perfect.

You should stick to a single arrow with the first of these two statements because, as you observe, it is a definition. The 'if and only if' second statement is, again as you observe, properly diagrammed and understood as a bidirectional conditional statement.

This type of definition is not exclusive, and so it's only one arrow. For example, if we define Bobby Wood as an exceptional soccer player, that is properly diagrammed thus:

Bobby Wood exception soccer player

because there are other soccer players who are also exceptional; in other words, knowing that a particular soccer player is exceptional is not enough to prove that the player is Bobby Wood.

However, some definitions are exclusive, and they get a bidirectional arrow. For instance, if we define Lionel Messi as the best soccer player in the world, then the definition is exclusive (no one else can claim it) and thus it deserves a double arrow:

Lionel Messi best in the world

because knowing either of those things about a particular player (that he is Lionel Messi or that he is the best in the world) would be enough to prove the other.

I hope that helps.

[BrookeLSATQUEEN]

Can someone explain why the last sentence isnt considered a subconlusion or a claim that backs up conclusion. Also if it says USUALLY, wouldnt that mean that it can sometimes be education, and thats why i didnt pick D, because if it cant both be the same thing, then education can never be logans, and i picked e because it fits for both, and we know that propaganda is more successful

[Adam Tyson]

The last sentence of the stimulus is not a subconclusion, BrookeLSATQUEEN, because the author never attempts to prove it. A conclusion is only a conclusion if there is at least one premise offered in support of it, so since there is no premise to support the claim that propaganda is more successful, it cannot be any kind of conclusion.

It's not a premise because the author doesn't base any conclusion on that claim. A premise is only a premise if it is offered in support of a conclusion, and the claim that propaganda is more successful doesn't support any other claim in the stimulus. It has no relationship to the claim that health education is usually just propaganda. That last sentence is just out there on its own, adding nothing to the argument!

The author does leave open the possibility that some health education is, in fact, education, but the question stem is about what is usually true, not what is always true. Read the stem together with the correct answer, and you get this:

"what is called "health education" usually attempts to influence behavior solely by repeating simplistic slogans"

If that's true, then it proves that health education is usually propaganda, just as the author claimed in the conclusion at the beginning of the argument!

Answer E doesn't prove that health education is usually propaganda, because "more successful" and "very successful" aren't the same thing. Even if health education is usually very successful, it could still all be true education rather than propaganda. Propaganda might be even more successful, but that doesn't mean education is not successful.