Conditional Reasoning Question

[PB410]

Hi,
i've been going over conditional reasoning questions, and I could use some help in understanding how to break down the logic in this question.

Q: To become an expert on a musical instrument, a person must practice. If people practice a musical instrument for three hours each day, they will eventually become experts on that instrument. Therefore, if a person is an expert on a musical instrument, that person must have practiced for at least three hours each day.

My analysis:
I diagramed the first sentence as
E(expert)--------P(practice)
The second sentence looks like a mistaken reversal of the first sentence
P3---------E
The last sentence/conclusion
E----------P3

So the way I viewed the stimulus is to anticipate an answer that covers this mistaken reversal that I diagramed. The correct answer suggests otherwise which makes me question my diagram and, when given a stimulus with three potential pieces of conditional reasoning, which one do I work off of. The wording in the second sentence is less defined as the first and last, which also makes me wonder how to relate and diagram the pieces of information in a conditional reasoning setup.

[Dave Killoran]

Hi PB,

The question you are asking about is from the Dec91 LSAT, Section 4, #7. Fortunately, we have a complete explanation of that problem on the Forum already, at lsat/viewtopic.php?t=6270.

If you don't mind, take a look at that explanation and see if that doesn't help here (and more importantly, check out the links in my answer to your other post—I think that will help clear up some of the uncertainty you are facing with conditionality!). If you have additional questions afterwards, please post them here and we'll discuss this problem in more detail.

Thanks!