#6 - Books about architectural works, unless they are not

[LSAT2018]

Thank you for the reply. But if I include the flawed part, how would I diagram it? The conclusion is the necessary part 'they are flawed' so we need to activate the sufficient part so the conclusion follows through. So can I ask how to do the nested conditional for the part 'if they do not, they are flawed'?

I initially thought it was
No Discussion on Utility or No Aesthetic Appeal → Not Intended for General Audience → Flawed

But the necessary part is 'Intended for General Audience'. Any way to resolve this?

[Adam Tyson]

It could be done a couple ways, LSAT_2018. Here's one:

(DU or DA) (IGA Flawed)

Here's another, not using a nested conditional but instead using a more standard multi-conditional:

(DU or DA))

+ Flawed

IGA

Using this second diagram, we know that Morton's book has met the first sufficient condition - it doesn't discuss all the aesthetics that it should. If we were to learn that it is intended for a general audience, it would meet both sufficient conditions, and thus we could conclude that it was flawed.

[LSAT2018]

For the multi-conditional, how does it factor in the 'unless they are not intended for a general audience' part of the stimulus. I see that if 'it is flawed' is the necessary part, there are several sufficient conditions. But what of the relationship between the sufficient conditions such as the 'unless'?

I apologize that I keep asking about this, but complex conditional reasoning like makes me very nervous and I want to practice more of these.

[gen2871]

I dear LSAT Masters:

I found attacking this question can both super easy and extremely hard at the same time.
If I follow the Powerscore textbook, I have the first diagram as the following:
~ (U + A) ~ general audience =====> ~u or ~ A ~ general audience (had to dig out my 10 year old sentential logic book to understand how the shift came about).

Rather if I understand the sentence as "if not not intended as a general audience, books ought to include discussion both the utility and aesthetic appeal (unless = if not). hence the diagram yield under this condition is general audience U+A.

second premise, if they do not, they are flawed which means if they are for general audience, and they dont contain both U+ A, they are flawed.

so the diagram can be yield as "[general audience + (U + A)] flaw

The trickiest part of this question lies in its question stem, after hours of battling with the logic in the stimulus, a strike of thunder hit me, it is not to prove the conclusion which is flawed or the argument is flawed, rather it is actually an Assumption question. so what is assumed in order to say the conclusion is flawed (flawed being the necessary condition)

It is for general audience, and not contain both U+A, thats why it is flawed. not the flaw in the argument itself, rather it is the necessary condition!!!!

ARRRRRR, please give me some positive and affirmative feedback for I have been driving myself crazy for this one single question for least 3 or 4 hours. thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

It is indeed an assumption question, gen! In order to conclude that the book is flawed, we want to set up a relationship where "flawed" is a necessary condition, all by itself.

We know from the stimulus that one condition has been met, in that the book does not discuss the aesthetic appeal of one of the buildings it considered. What else do we need to get to "flawed"?

Perhaps it would be useful here to do away with the conditional diagram for a moment, and take an approach that is more akin to the mechanistic approach for Justify the Conclusion questions, which happens to work very nicely on a lot of Supporter Assumptions like this one. What's missing from this equation? What "rogue" element was brought up in the stimulus, but is not mentioned again? It's that claim about being intended for a general audience. From a purely mechanistic approach, that's the only outlier here. We know the book doesn't discuss all the aesthetics, and we conclude that it is flawed. Our answer MUST mention something about being intended for a general audience, because that is the only thing missing!

Gen, your analysis is correct. We are not looking for a flaw in the argument - we are simply looking to supply the missing link to get to a conclusion of "it is flawed."

LSAT2018, that "unless" phrase can be tricky, but try a more holistic approach to get to a diagram that works for you. If the two diagrammatic approaches I shared aren't making it clear, then try paraphrasing the argument in a way that makes sense to you, using "if...then" statements, and you should ultimately get to a diagram, or perhaps an understanding that doesn't require one, that will help you get to the right answer.

For further help on the mechanics involved in creating those diagrams, try searching this forum and the blog for more discussions of the term "nested conditional." Here's one that I found that might help:

https://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/powers ... the-day-26

[gen2871]

Yay! You are sooo awesome!! Thank you, Adam!

[askuwheteau@protonmail.com]

I'd appreciate assistance on this one. I understood this to be an Assumption question with a Principle overlay. On this problem I am not certain if, lexically speaking, LSAC's usage of the words utility is equivalent in meaning to function and if absence of a discussion of aesthetics is equivalent to Morton's neglecting to discuss the Hall's ceiling.

* My master diagram is: (Struckthrough DU and Struckthrough DA)>IGA

* The contrapositive of the above is: IGA>DU or DA

So if Morton met one of the dual necessary conditions (i.e., DA= discussion of utility) as shown in the contrapositive, then it could be true that the contrapositive's sufficient condition IGA occurs. After all a necessary condition cannot force a sufficient condition to occur, but is nonetheless required for it to be able to occur at all. Hence, by the diagram IGA>DU or DA answer choice C could be a necessary assumption.

Is there a more clear way of understanding this question and why answer choice C is the best answer?

[Amber Thomas]

Hi askuwheteau!

This is a difficult question, because we are asking whether or not the book is flawed, which doesn't easily factor into our diagram. A simpler way to understand it might be: If an architectural book is Intended for General Audiences, and it does not include Discussions of both Utility and Aesthetics, it is flawed. Morton's architectural book does not include Discussions of Aesthetics. Therefore, to properly conclude that Morton's book is flawed based on our premises, we must establish that Morton's book is Intended for General Audiences. If his book is Intended for General Audiences, it then fits into our established criteria for determining whether or not an architectural book is flawed.

Sometimes spelling it out in plain English can be useful when diagramming becomes too complicated in situations such as these.

[askuwheteau@protonmail.com]

I was able to understand it better the way you described. Thank you Amber!