#19- The coach of the Eagles used a computer analysis to

[Annah]

Thank you Nikki!
That helps clarify things a great deal. In fact, it's helped me in attacking other similar questions as well

[deck1134]

Hi PowerScore,

A somewhat abstract question here. When I did this question, I thought "looks like a TimeShift error," which it turned out to be. But then I went ahead and diagrammed the conditionals just to be safe. I'm somewhat stuck because I get to #19 with about 9 minutes left, but sometimes struggle to finish. In this case, the diagramming was not necessary, but sometimes it is this late in the section and in those cases, it is usually the key to the question.

Do you recommend diagramming in this instance? I could easily have taken my prephrase and run, but that doesn't always work!

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

If you have a solid prephrase, and you feel confident about it, run with it, Deck! Diagram when you need to in order to understand the stimulus. If you already understand it, then diagramming it is unnecessary and wastes precious time.

[LearntheLSAT]

Hello!

In the past, whenever I assumed things regarding flaw questions (IE: problem with survey, unrepresented sample, etc.) it usually tends to be another flaw (such as conditional); for me, I diagrammed the conditional and selected A. My confusion I guess stems from my past mistakes assuming other factors besides the conditional. (Similarly to how the coach assumes a temporal flaw as not a flaw ) I guess my main question is: How do I identify the correct flaw in questions that seemingly appear to have a couple of flaws. As stated, I've made mistakes in the past with the selection and did the same thing here.

Thanks in advance!!

[Adam Tyson]

That's a more complex question that it may seem, LearntheLSAT, because there are often multiple flaws in a stimulus, and there are also multiple ways to describe a single flaw. Your prephrase is the right place to start, but if no answer matches it then you can try eliminating wrong answers instead. For example, in this case, if the problem was conditional, it would still be about the past. "When we lost, she didn't play, so when we won she must have played" would be such a flaw, and that's answer A - but it doesn't describe what happened in the stimulus because the author concluded nothing about what happened in the past! Instead, he made a prediction for the future, which is beyond the scope of the conditional relationship presented to us. If a flaw answer describes something that didn't happen in the stimulus, it's a wrong answer!

In the long run, it's going to be all about practice, familiarity, and confidence. As you do more of these, studying from both your mistakes and your successes, you will become more accurate in your prephrasing and more confident in those prephrases, and you will less and less often get caught up in attractive wrong answers. Don't let your past mistakes lead to self-doubt - instead, let them guide you to learn new lessons and build your confidence that next time, you won't make that mistake!

[SGD2021]

Hello, I understand why Answer choice A is wrong here but beyond the question itself, doesnt answer choice A just describe what a contrapositive is, so it isnt even describing a flaw at all? (my question isn't about the actual stimulus since I know there is no conditionality flaw in the stimulus but I just think that Answer Choice A would be the description of the contrapositive of a statement: infers from the fact that a certain factor is sufficient (A) for a result (B) that the absence of that factor (not A) is necessary for the opposite result (not B). So like A-->B; not B-->not A)

[Adam Tyson]

Answer A is actually describing something more akin to a Mistaken Negation, SGD2021, and not a contrapositive. It also has a touch of causal reasoning ("result" is an effect) thrown in. A Mistaken Negation would be a flaw if that's what the author had done in this case, but the stimulus looks more like a contrapositive and could be valid if not for the time shift. The stimulus is basically:

Premise: Lost Jennifer Played

Conclusion: Jennifer Plays Win (pretty close to saying Lose, except it fails to account for a tie)

Answer A is saying that the author inferred from the fact that when Jennifer didn't play, they lost, that when she does play, they will win. But the author did NOT claim that when Jennifer didn't play, they lost. The author said that when the lost, Jennifer did not play! So they did not make a Mistaken Negation in this case.

[SGD2021]

Hello, thank you very much for your response! I do not see why Answer choice A is "saying that the author inferred from the fact that when Jennifer didn't play, they lost, that when she does play, they will win." To me answer choice A seems to say "infers from the fact that a certain factor is sufficient("team losing") for a result (jennifer not present) that the absence of that factor (not losing/winning) is necessary for the opposite result (jennifer present). I thought this was simply describing the contrapositive in the stimulus so since it isnt a flaw, A isnt the right answer.

Also, if A ENSURES B then that means that A is sufficient condition right? If a certain factor “will ensure that” something else will happen, then the factor that will ensure something is the sufficient condition right? (since "ensure" is like "always bring about")

[Adam Tyson]

I wouldn't call "Jennifer not playing" a result, SGD. Results are like effects - they come AFTER the cause. So if there is any element of "results" in what the argument did, it's about the team losing. You're right about what was sufficient and necessary in the stimulus, but answer A doesn't describe what happened in the stimulus, which is why it's a wrong answer!

And yes, sufficient conditions do ensure that necessary conditions will occur. "Ensure" is another way of indicating a conditional relationship.