#5 - The government provides insurance for individuals' bank

[obs23]

I have this sentence taken from real past LSAT(PT7, S4, Q5):

The government provides insurance for individuals' bank deposits, but requires the banks to pay the premiums for this insurance.

G- government
I - insurance for individuals' bank deposits
BPP - banks to pay the premiums

I am trying to come up with the diagram for this sentence in my head, thinking along the lines:
“The government provides insurance for individuals' bank deposits” The government would be G and insurance for individuals' bank deposits would be I. Therefore, the structure of this part of the argument would be G I, which is logically identical to “Only government provides insurance for individuals’ bank deposits” [admittedly, the assumption is strong]
Continuation… "The government provides insurance for individuals' bank deposits, but requires the banks to pay the premiums for this insurance". So, I am thinking, next structure G BPP. Overall structure of what has been said is G I AND BPP...the confidence wanes and then I am lost because I cannot translate it in English

After long deliberation with myself, I finally came up with I G BPP (which I now feel is correct), or in plain English, "When there is insurance for individuals’ bank deposits, banks are the ones to pay for premiums" (This is question #1, by the way, is I G BPP correct?)

I guess my next question, along with whether or not my line of thinking is correct, is it true that you can only come up with a proper diagram when there is a context? In other words, in “The government provides insurance for individuals' bank deposits” part, the diagram could as well be G I (which is what I was so confident about in the beginning), but only with the continuation of "...but requires the banks to pay the premiums for this insurance" it is possible to come up with the proper logical structure? When I had G I I could not connect pieces together, even though it felt so logical...I was so confused...I even came up with G I and BPP, but then I could not translate it in plain English...which is important to me

So my final question is (here finally comes the question ) if we do NOT have this part "...but requires the banks to pay the premiums for this insurance", and we have ONLY this part "The government provides insurance for individuals' bank deposits” would it be logically diagrammed as G I or I G? And regardless, I need to know why please

Sorry for such a long question, but I am not sure how to put it briefly, I want you to see my line of thinking regarding the structure and connections that can be made along the way. So it is an open ended question, please share your thoughts.

Regards.
Obs

P.S I am reading a preview of my Q and it looks like a blog or something

[Ron Gore]

Hi Obs! Thanks for your question. No worries about the length of your post - that just shows your effort, which is awesome, and helps us help you.

A little background for my response. "Formal logic" is just translating relationships into symbols and then making inferences from the symbolized relationships. In the Logical Reasoning Bible, we discuss formal logic as pertaining to relationships involving the terms "some", "most", "all", and "none".

Conditional reasoning is a subset of formal logic, describing those relationships that are absolute, i.e. all or none of a group. So, for example, "all cars have wheels," or "no cars have antlers." A conditional relationship is expressed as having a "sufficient" condition and a "necessary" condition. Evidence that the sufficient condition has been met is all the evidence you need to know that the necessary condition must also be met. This is often presented in the "if...then" format. For example:

If it is a car, then it must have wheels.

car wheels

[Note: if you wish, you can abstract this diagram to any term, so long as you remember what each term represents, but such abstraction is not mandatory.
E.g., A B. ]

Causal reasoning, unlike conditional reasoning, is about force. The cause forces the effect to occur. So, for example, "the windshield wipers keep the windshield clean".

Now, for the responses to your questions:

Q1: I G BPP correct?

A1: Unfortunately, no. The statement that "the government provides insurance for individuals' bank deposits" is not formal logic. It does not contain language such as "all", "most", "some", or "none". Nor is it conditional reasoning, because it does not contain an absolute relationship in which evidence that one term has been fulfilled shows that the other term must necessarily have been fulfilled as well.

However, the broader statement of "the government provides insurance for individuals' bank deposits, but requires the banks to pay the premiums for this insurance" does contain a conditional relationship: if there is government-provided insurance for an individual's bank deposits, then the bank must pay the premium for this insurance. You would diagram this relationship as:

government-provided insurance bank pays the premium

As to the portion that says "the government provides insurance for individuals' bank deposits," you can think of this as causal. In other words, the government causes the insurance to be in place.

Q2: Is it true that you can only come up with a proper diagram when there is a context?

A2: Absolutely. Each of the types of reasoning we've discussed so far, formal logic, conditional reasoning, and causal reasoning, are about relationships between two or more terms. That necessarily means there must be some context within which to identify and examine the relationship. For example, we can't simply have one term and say it is a conditional relationship, or a "some" or "most" type formal logic relationship.

Q3: If we do NOT have this part "...but requires the banks to pay the premiums for this insurance", and we have ONLY this part "The government provides insurance for individuals' bank deposits” would it be logically diagrammed as G I or I G?

A3: As discussed in A1 and A2, the answer is no, if you are asking about conditional reasoning or formal logic. However, as a causal relationship, then yes, the government causes the insurance to be in place.

In the LSAT question that prompted your thoughts, you have the application of a principle. A principle is a rule that tells you how to think or act in a given situation. As such, it is conditional, i.e., "if you see this circumstance, then think or act in this manner".

This is a Strengthen - Principle question, so the correct answer choice provides the rule that supports the conclusion that "the government should take steps to ensure that depositors who want this security bear the cost of it and thus should make depositors pay the premiums for insuring their own accounts".

The correct answer choice, (A), provides this rule: "the people who stand to benefit from an economic service should always be made to bear the costs of that service." In this case, "the people who stand to benefit" are the depositors, the "economic service" is the insurance, and "to bear the costs" means to pay the premium. So, the depositors should pay the premium for insuring their own accounts.

I hope all that helps! Please let me know if I can assist you further.

Ron

[Katherinthesky]

Hello,

The stimulus says that the depositors are the ones who "primarily benefit" from the insurance, which implies that there are other entities who would also benefit from the security. The argument in the stimulus then says that depositors rather than banks should bear the cost of security.

Answer (A) says that the people who "stand to benefit" from the insurance should always be made to "bear the cost" of insurance-- but I'm not sure how this specifically means the depositors, and not other entities who also benefit, other than the depositors.
If Answer (A) mentioned "primarily stand to benefit" then I see how this would strengthen.

Any clarification appreciated.

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Katherinthesky!

Love that close reading--it's an important skill on the LSAT! In this case, though, we don't really need answer choice (A) to specify those who "primarily stand to benefit."

Principles are rules. The rule in answer choice (A) is that if you stand to benefit from an economic service, then you should bear the costs of that service.

The depositors in our stimulus definitely benefit from an economic service (insurance), so, based on the principle, that's enough to strengthen that they should bear the costs of that service.

Answer choice (A) doesn't need to be more specific because whether the rule applies to those who benefit generally or only those who primarily benefit, it still applies to the depositors in the stimulus (if you primarily benefit, then you definitely benefit). Thus, it strengthens the argument that the depositors should bear the costs of the insurance.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey