#1- Joanna: The only way for a company to be successful

[Pragmatism]

So, I boiled it down between A & E. However, upon reviewing this question, I realized, A turned out to be the right answer. I would like some clarity on why A is right over E please. Also, I would like to see what you make of my rationale for picking the answer choice that I did, which was E.

So, starting with A. Joanna, present a claim and concludes with, "it is futile for...whole new business." Ruth, responds by saying, "Wrong." The explanation Ruth provides would be constituted as a counterexample in answer choice A. But, I struggled with understanding, how can one offer a counterexample to a claim that didn't present an example in the first place. In other words, if John and Joe wanted to negotiate, and John says, "The only way for a deal to be successful, after a negotiation, is to give the highest offer a deal maker is willing to make." Then, Joe responds, "I offer you a $1,000.00." In that example, Joe never offered a counteroffer, per se, instead, Joe just went for the kill on John's statement. So, with that reasoning in mind, I couldn't justify this "counterexample" notion.

As for E, I took this as a binary option, you are either dead or alive. Joanna says, "The only way...that it did before going bankrupt." Ruth responds, by what I believed to be an establishment of the only plausible alternative, which is the logic opposite of what Joanna was claiming. The Kelton Company, a major mining operation, turned its mines into landfills instead of going back to mining to be successful.

[James Finch]

Hi Pragmatism,

These types of Method questions can be difficult because they require an accurate evaluation of everything contained within an argument. That includes the entire context, including whether the argument is to prove a claim or to rebut one. The terminology used on the LSAT for rebuttal arguments is different for those used to prove a claim.

Here, we have Joanna making a claim, then supporting that claim by asserting that the other possibility is in fact impossible. We could restate her argument as:

If a company has been successful after emerging from bankruptcy, it must have been producing the same goods or services as before bankruptcy.

Successful Same

She justifies this by saying that they cannot learn a whole new business.

Same Successful

Ruth counters that claim, and uses an example to do so, i.e. a counterexample. (A counterexample doesn't necessarily counter a specific example, but is used within a counterargument to attack the original argument's premises).

Same KeltonSuccessful

That counterexample directly attacks the premise Joanna relies upon to support her claim, which is what answer choice (A) correctly describes. As we're looking for an element of Ruth's argument, this is the correct answer.

Answer choice (E) correctly describes Joanna's original argument, in that she uses the contrapositive of her premise as her conclusion. However, we are looking for Ruth's method of argumentation, not Joanna's, and thus this is incorrect; Ruth does not exclude the other plausible alternative, but instead directly falsifies the premise with an example.

[Pragmatism]

James thank you very much. Silly question, but if you wanted to counter a S/N relationship, would you go about it the same way to a certain extent as you would with C/E relationship? In other words, show:
— that the while the sufficient occurred, the necessary didn't; X --> ~Y
— necessary actually triggered the sufficient; Y ---> X
— or as the stimulus presented itself, the lack necessary still triggered the sufficient being argued earlier. ~Y --> X

[Dave Killoran]

James thank you very much. Silly question, but if you wanted to counter a S/N relationship, would you go about it the same way to a certain extent as you would with C/E relationship? In other words, show:
— that the while the sufficient occurred, the necessary didn't; X --> ~Y
— necessary actually triggered the sufficient; Y ---> X
— or as the stimulus presented itself, the lack necessary still triggered the sufficient being argued earlier. ~Y --> X

Hi Pragmatism,

It's a good question, not a silly one at all! The method for countering a conditional relationship is to show that the necessary condition is not in fact necessary. That fundamentally negates the nature of the conditional relationship. So, in your options above, the first summarizes that perfectly. The second has no effect because you could have a biconditional ( ), in which case you haven't undermined the original conditional statement. The third option you mention is actually just the first option: showing that the necessary isn't necessary.

My personal improvement of answer (A) would be:

• (A) She presents a counterexample to a claim, which shows that the necessary condition is not in fact necessary, thus undermining the claim.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!