LR Bible pg 162 Q#2

[Harman]

I am a little confused regarding this question, specifically the last sentence.
I understand the either or statement:
Not jail -> driver re edu.
Not Driver re edu -> Jail.

The Only if statement:
Driver re edu -> responsible

then combine the two: not jail -> driver re edu -> responsible.
not responsible -> not Driver edu -> jail

however the last sentence states: Unfortunately it is almost always impossible to make drivers with a large number of demerit points more responsible drivers.

The explanation in the book states that this means not responsible which would indicate the author is stating the contrapositive of the chain via negating responsible. Hence answer choice A would be correct. This answer however seems very absolute, I perceived the word almost in the last sentence to be of less "logical force" or less broad since almost introduced the possibility of it not always being the case. Thus the possibility of the not jail chain. Answer choice A eliminates the possibility of the not jail chain (since it is absolute) via the logical force (this is the part that is confusing) of the last sentence showing that responsibility is not possible; but again, I thought the always almost would allow for a possibility of being responsible; making answer choice A a could be true vs a mbt, since there was another possibility.

The author also did not state "not both" for the either or statement so theoretically speaking, couldn't both of them be possible?

Seems like this type of Answer Choice was incorrect on a lot of other Mbt questions because of the scope/logical force.

Sorry if this was a little redundant, I am really trying to nail down logical equivalency.
Thanks.

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi Harman,

Let's simplify the reasoning here: the author states that you have two options if you have a ton of demerit points AND have been convicted of a serious offense: go to jail or get re-educated. The latter option, however, depends on the probability that you'll be made a more responsible driver (only if such drivers are likely to be made more responsible should driver re-education be recommended). Are they likely to be made more responsible? No: they almost never are. This triggers the contrapositive chain, validating answer choice A.

I understand your beef with the last sentence, which is less than absolute ("almost always"). However, we don't need an absolute statement here: all we need to establish is that the necessary condition of the preceding sentence is not met. Since the necessary condition for driver re-education was only a matter of likelihood, not a matter of certainty, the last sentence is sufficient to trigger the contrapositive.

Does that make sense?

Thanks!

[Harman]

Wow, I cant believe I missed that, it's so simple. I really need to work on Primary objective 4, which I believe is my weak point at the moment. Is there a section in the bible or an online resource that you can point me to that talks about logical force and specific language we should look out for? I've made a rough list myself but I frequently miss noticing such terms which weakens my prephrase as well.

Contrapositive, sorry went through my spell check a little fast.

Thanks for clarifying, I thought that I was missing some fundamental concept.

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hey Harman,

We talk about the importance of language in Lesson 1 of the Full Length course, and also in Chapter 2 of the Logical Reasoning Bible. We frequently address such issues of language as scope, fact vs. opinion, certainty vs. probability, etc. when discussing actual question types. For instance, check out our discussion of Must Be True, Assumption, and Parallel Reasoning, as linguistic nuances are likely to play an even more critical role when attacking questions of those three types.

Glad I could help!