#7 - Politician: Unless our nation redistributes wealth

[Dave Killoran]

In my opinion is the answer B is right and answer E also right but since the question about the conclusion it does make more sense that B is better but not that E a mistaken
Regards,

Hey Mustafa,

I wanted to take a moment and add to Steve's superb answer. In the section I quoted above, you mention that you think B is correct and E, the correct answer according to the test makers, is incorrect. I understand why you think that, and hopefully Steve's analysis explains why B is actually incorrect. But, the thing I wanted to comment on is the idea of disagreeing with the LSAT and the answers they say are right and wrong. While you should use your opinions to ferret out bad arguments, one thing you can't do is argue with the LSAT when it comes to what is right and wrong. when it's all said and done, because they score the test you will lose every time I wrote an article about how you should look at things when you disagree with them, and I'd recommend reading through that. One of the most important things to do while studying is to understand how they think, and to realize that your opinion won't change the answer (although I wish it could sometimes!). The more you do that, the better you will score.

I hope that helps a bit with how to approach situations like this. Thanks!

[Mustafaabdulmalek]

Thanks you for your response but you misunderstood me
I don't think that the answer is correct or not ,you are right but
The thing that I don't get is how answer E the wrong one is a mistaken reversal and how redistribution wealth is sufficient not necessary
Regards

[Steve Stein]

Hey Mustafa,

Did you get a chance to take a look at the first part of our response? The first part deals with sufficient versus necessary, and the second part with why it's a good idea to avoid disagreeing with the test makers—both are important points to consider, and both seem relevant to this discussion. For convenience I've reproduced the first part of that response below; please take a look and let me know whether it's clear—thanks!

Hey Mustafa,

That's a good question. You're right about the fact that the word "required" is usually associated with a necessary condition—indeed, the word is actually synonymous with “necessary.”

That answer choice, however, says that wealth distribution is “all that is required.” If you have all that is required to do something, then what you have is sufficient. Consider the following example:

• All you need to enter the theater is a ticket. A ticket is all you need for entry.

Another way to phrase this would be “a ticket is sufficient for entry.” Ticket Entry

So, if "all that is required" to create justice is wealth distribution, this means that wealth distribution is sufficient to create justice:

• Wealth redistribution Create Justice

The moral of the story: If something is required, it is necessary. If something is "all that's required," that's sufficient.

[Mustafaabdulmalek]

Thank you very very much for this you made it so clear now
This answer was So helpful
Thanks

[Nsaramouni]

Hello,

I am having trouble understanding why the statement 'redistribution of wealth' does not have a biconditional element
As in Economic justice on one branch and intolerance on the other....

The word 'and' seems like it would create both, not a continuous chain. Is it possible to get some clarification on this?

[Adam Tyson]

The "and" is connecting two necessary conditions (unable to alleviate... AND will lead inevitably to...), Nsaramouni, and is not creating a biconditional with redistribution of wealth. A biconditional would be if failing to redistribute wealth ensured those conditions and the presence of those conditions also guaranteed that wealth was not redistributed. Instead, we have what we sometimes call a "multi-conditional" statement, where one condition is sufficient for two or more others, or where multiple conditions, either together or separately, may be sufficient for the same thing.

"If I stop eating so much junk food I will lose weight and feel better" = Stop Eating Junk Food Lose Weight + Feel Better. The contrapositive is Lose Weight OR Feel Better Stop Eating Junk Food. But losing weight doesn't prove I stopped eating junk food, nor does feeling better. Also, losing weight and feeling better are not sufficient or necessary for each other.

In this argument it's Redistribute Wealth Alleviate Economic Injustice + Intolerable Inequities. The contrapositive is Alleviate Economic Injustice OR Intolerable Inequities Redistribute Wealth

At no point is do we have a claim that Redistribution of Wealth guarantees Alleviating Economic Injustice. The conditional relationship doesn't flow in that direction.

[lsat$student]

I am a bit confused as to how we can rule out answer choice E. I see that with the unless equation we can derive:

NOT $ Injustice Redistribute wealth

Answer choice E states: All that is required to create conditions of economic justice is the redistribution of wealth. I thought this could be diagramed as

Economic justice --> redistribute wealth.

Am i going too far by assuming that economic justice = Not $ injustice? Cause if these are equivalent then doesnt answer choice e match the diagraming of the first sentence in the stimulus? I see why B is correct but I am having difficultly understanding why answer choice e should be eliminated.

[Jeff Wren]

Hello,

The wording of Answer E can be tricky for many students to diagram.

The phrase "all that is required to" contains both a sufficient indicator ("all") and necessary indicator ("required"). What immediately follows the words "required to" is the necessary condition. What follows the verb "is" is the sufficient condition.

For example, the sentence, "All that is required to do well on the LSAT is to study hard" means that if one studies hard, then one will do well on the LSAT (since studying hard is all that is required, meaning that it is sufficient to guarantee the result).

In Answer E, "redistribution of wealth" is the sufficient and "conditions of economic justice" is the necessary. It's basically saying if we redistribute wealth, then we will create conditions of economic justice. As has been previously mentioned in earlier comments, this is a Mistaken Reversal of what is given in the stimulus.

[cd1010]

Hello! I wanted to clarify the diagram for the first sentence which relates to how to use the Unless equation.

In one of the previous posts, the student diagrammed the first sentence as an OR statement, but I had diagrammed it as an And statement. I took the necessary condition (our nation redistributes wealth), and then negated the sufficient. I had put:

Able to alleviate economic injustice
AND Redistribute wealth
/Economic Inequities

I had read the first statement as having two sufficient conditions.

For the unless equation, when there are two sufficient elements, do I negate the whole thing (hence turn the AND into an OR), or do I just negate each element?

Dear Powerscore,

I looked at the explanation however I am still confused on how the stimulus was diagramed.

I thought that the first sentence is diagramed as:

Able to Aleviate Economic Injustice OR Economic System will not lead to intolerable econic inequaties--->Nation Redistributes Wealth

It was diagramed as one statement in the answers.
Redistribute wealth → $ Injustice → $ Inequality

I know that unless, introduces the necessary and negates the sufficient.
So, if I have: A or B, unless C
it will be diagramed as: (bc if I negate or it becomes and) please let me know if it looks correct.
not A and not B--->C correct?

So, please let me know how to negate or/and statements when i have unless negating it. Also, how to diagram the first statment in this stimulus because I had and statment and they seem to have an or statement.

Thanks

Ellen

[Hanin Abu Amara]

Hi cd1010,

Great questions. We approach unless in two steps.

step 1: everything unless refers to is the necessary condition
step 2: negate the sufficient

Here, like you said we have two sufficient conditions. When we negate the sufficient we also negate AND and change it to OR and vice versa.

So here we have: able to alleviate OR current system will not lead ---> nation redistributes wealth

Hope that makes sense