LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Johnclem
  • Posts: 122
  • Joined: Dec 31, 2015
|
#26689
Hi,
For this question.. is D wrong because it could be true rather than a must be , or is it wrong due to reversal error.? I just thought of this because, the necessary condition does not depend on the sufficient occurring, and all statements could be read backwards.

roses --> display of colour
Worth growing --> smell sweet
Roses <SOME> do not smell sweet

d) some roses which smell sweet are not worth growing in the garden.

Thank you
John
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 5400
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#26805
Hey John! I would not classify D as a reversal, but I think you are right that it merely Could Be True rather than Must Be True.

The stimulus diagrams out just like you have it - good job there. A reversal would be something like Smell Sweet -> Worth Growing, but D says Smell Sweet (some) -> NOT Worth Growing.

Your prephrase here should be that there are at least some roses (the ones with no scent) that are not worth growing. Since we know that ALL roses have a stunning display of colour, then there must be some that, despite having that lovely characteristic, aren't worth growing. That's Answer A here - at least some flowers (the unscented roses) have a stunning display of colour but are nonetheless not worth growing.

Good job on the diagram! Keep up the good work.
 Johnclem
  • Posts: 122
  • Joined: Dec 31, 2015
|
#26888
Thank you for this ! Just one more question that I want to confirm. Is it possible to connect some statements to a contra positive ?
Here's what I mean : combining contraspositive of statement 2 with statment 3.
1 ) roses --> DC
2) grow --> sweet
3) roses <some> not sweet

Roses <SOME> Not sweet--> not worth growing

Thanks
John
 David Boyle
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 836
  • Joined: Jun 07, 2013
|
#26889
Johnclem wrote:Thank you for this ! Just one more question that I want to confirm. Is it possible to connect some statements to a contra positive ?
Here's what I mean : combining contraspositive of statement 2 with statment 3.
1 ) roses --> DC
2) grow --> sweet
3) roses <some> not sweet

Roses <SOME> Not sweet--> not worth growing

Thanks
John

Hello John,

That may also be another way to do it. Good thinking.
(Or, maybe, seeing how answer A is worded,

flowers displaying color SUBSCRIPT roses :some: not sweet :arrow: not worth growing

)

Hope this helps,
David

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.