#23 - Whoever is kind is loved by somebody or other, and

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Justify the Conclusion-SN. The correct answer choice is (D)

To solve this question quickly and efficiently, you need to diagram the conditional reasoning that underlies the argument:

• Premise: Kind → Loved by others
  
  Premise: Love anyone → Happy
  
  Conclusion: Kind → Happy

Clearly, this chain of reasoning is missing a link between "loved by others" and "loving anyone." Since the question stem is asking us to identify an assumption that will be sufficient to prove the conclusion, we need to look for an answer that establishes the following:

• Loved by others → Love anyone

That is, whoever is loved by somebody or other loves anyone. This would lead to the correct conclusion by additive inference with the existing premises. Alternatively, you can look for the logical equivalent of this idea, which is expressed by the contrapositive:

• Love others → Loved by others

That is, whoever loves nobody is loved by nobody. Answer choice (D) is therefore correct.

Answer choice (A): Love someone → Love anyone

This answer choice fails to link the first premise to the rest of the argument, and instead introduces another conditional element (loving someone). If whoever loves someone loves everyone, and premise #2 requires that whoever loves anyone is happy, we can only conclude that whoever loves someone is happy. Since this is not the conclusion we are asked to justify, this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): Love anyone → Love someone

This answer choice has the same implications as answer choice (A); in fact, it is the Mistaken Reversal of that answer. Both answer choices fail to link the element of kindness to the conclusion and are therefore incorrect.

Answer choice (C): Happy → Love anyone

This answer choice is the Mistaken Reversal of the second premise of the argument. This creates a circular chain of reasoning, wherein each statement both implies and is implied by the other.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. See discussion above. Even if you failed to diagram the conditional reasoning relationships in this argument, you should notice that this answer choice is the only one that mentions the element of "loved by," and one of only two answer choices that refers to being "kind." Both of these elements are constitutive of the first premise of the argument and must be linked to the conclusion.

Answer choice (E): Love anyone → Kind

When added to the premises, this statement only proves that whoever loves anyone is both kind and happy. But this does not lead to the conclusion that whoever is kind is happy, since some people who are kind may not love anyone. Two necessary conditions (kindness and happiness) which are both inferred by the same sufficient condition (loving anyone) do not infer each other.

[NeverMissing]

I got this question correct, but I have some questions about logical opposites of words like "someone" and "anyone."

Answer choice D states:

Loves no one Is loved by no one

Because this is the correct answer, I assume the contrapositive is this:

Is loved by someone Loves anyone

By making this statement into a contrapositive to fit it into the argument of the passage, "no one" becomes both "someone" and "anyone." Are "someone" and "anyone" synonymous terms? And is ""no one" always the logical opposite of "anyone?" Anyone seems to encompass more people than someone.

I know that in formal logic, someone is equivalent to at least one person, possibly more. Is this also the logical equivalent of the word anyone? I can't remember another time in an LSAT test where I've seen anyone used in this manner (and I've taken many, many prep tests!)

Thanks for the help!

[AthenaDalton]

Hi NeverMissing,

Here, you can use "someone" and "anyone" as synonyms. Both refer to the idea of at least one person, but maybe more.

You're correct that the logical opposite of "anyone" or "someone" is "no one."

Good instincts on tackling this question! Best of luck studying.

Athena Dalton

[Blueballoon5%]

Hello! I also got this question right, but I have a question about language. The above post indicated that "'someone' and 'anyone'" can be synonymous. However, I found the use of "everyone" in the answer choices to be odd. Is "everyone" also synonymous with "someone" and "anyone"?

I think I was thrown off a little because the term "everyone" is plural in meaning, but treated as singular in formal English (according to google). On the other hand, "someone" and "anyone" are more singular in meaning and formal English.

[James Finch]

Hi Blueballoon,

Don't be tricked by distractions like everyone/someone here. The test makers are trying to bait-and-switch test takers into wrong answer choices by using irrelevant and/or confusing information. Here, the key distinction is "loved" vs. "loved," and understanding that in order to make the logic in the stimulus work, we must connect the two via:

Loved Loves

So if we find an answer that fits that, or (as here) the contrapositve:

Loves Loved

We have our correct answer choice.

As to language, "some" means more than none, up to potentially "all" of something; "any" in this case would, as you note, mean the same as "some." "Every" is synonymous with "all." So "someone" or "anyone" have more quantitative wiggle room as terms than "everyone," which can only mean every single person.

Hope this helps!

[lsacgals101]

Can someone tell me where to find this complete problem?

Thanks!

[lsacgals101]

What is the logical opposite of "at least one" ??

[Brook Miscoski]

Lsacgals, this problem is from LSAT Preptest 46.

The logical opposite of "at least one" is "none," where we are using natural, whole numbers. On the LSAT, the logical opposite of "at least one" will be "none."

[Legallyconfused]

Hi everyone!
I am struggling with this problem in two ways: 1)I don't understand how people seem to be able to leap to the right sufficient assumption without making another assumption before that in order to reach it. 2) I don't understand why we can't just connect premise 1 to the conclusion or just premise 2 to the conclusion and say that doing so reached the conclusion?
Any help is much appreciated!!!

Struggle 1
I am just confused about how many assumptions (is that correct to say?) we have to make in order to reach the correct sufficient assumption (D), " Whoever loves no one is loved by no one" AKA "Whoever is loved by somebody loves anyone."

Premise 1: Kind -> Loved

Premise 2: Loves -> Happy

Conclusion: Kind -> Happy

I can clearly see that the two mismatched terms are "Loved" and "Loves" and I know they have to be connected in order to close the gap in the argument. But how do I know if it is "Whoever is loved by someone loves anyone" (Which I think is the correct answer) or "Whoever loves anyone is loved by someone."
I feel like a lot of people on this post are leaping to the correct assumption and connecting these two terms effortlessly and I'm not sure I can do that without making another assumption first. The assumption I would make first is, "Whoever is loved by somebody is happy." And then from that assumption, I combine it with Premise 2 and I reach Loved->Loves.

First, I combined Premise 1 with the conclusion to get: Loved->Happy.
Then, I combined Loved->Happy with Premise 2 to get: Loved -> Loves.

Is this the correct way to do it or is there a faster way to connect Loved->Loves?

Struggle 2
When I first did this question I also was confused with why it couldn't just be: Loved->Happy by connecting Premise 1 to the conclusion. Since this left out Premise 2, is that why this would not be a sufficient assumption? Because if Kind->Loved->Happy. Why can't the assumption be Loved->Happy lead to Kind->Happy?

Or why couldn't it be even Kind->Loves by connecting the Conclusion to Premise 2. This answer would leave out Premise 1...is that why this also could not be the answer? Because if Kind->Loves->Happy why can't the assumption be Kind->Loves because it could also lead to Kind->Happy.
Do we need to connect every premise to the conclusion? Why can't I ignore a premise and connect one to reach the conclusion. I feel like we kind of ignored the first premise of a similar question in LSAT 48, 4, 21 (The Sincerity, Success, and Trust question).

Thanks so much for your help in advance! I know this is a lot.

[Adam Tyson]

Hey there, Legallyconfused! While it is certainly possible that the correct answer to justify this conclusion would skip over the second premise or a portion of the first premise and just make the direct connections you were making, that would be rare on the LSAT. Most of the time, the correct answer will go right to closing the gap between the premises or between the premises and the conclusion. You've correctly noted that the gap is between "Loved" and "Loves," so start your analysis there. Think of it like stops on a train track - we started at Kind Station and that got us to Loved Station. We know that we can get from Loves Station to Happy Station. So how do we prove we can get from Kind Station to Happy Station? (man, this is starting to sound like the trolley in Mr. Rogers Neighborhood! Next stop, Magic Kingdom and Happy Station!) We say there is a train from Loved Station to Loves Station. Going the other way - from Loves to Loved - is heading in the wrong direction on our train! Connect the two things that are unconnected, and do so heading in the direction of the conclusion, and you'll form an unbroken path from the premises.

So, while we COULD justify the conclusion with an answer that said "whoever is kind loves someone" or with "whoever is loved is happy," that would be an unusual situation on this test. Start with the most obvious gap as your first, best prephrase, and if that doesn't get you a good answer choice, then try one of those other options.