#6 - If one is to participate in the regional band, one must

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below! Thank you!

[deck1134]

Is there any way that we could get an explanation for this question? I am somewhat confused how to classify the flaw in the stimulus. I know you guys don't usually post general explanations, but I really just don't see how to characterize this flaw in line with Powerscore methods and would appreciate some guidance.

Thanks!

[Malila Robinson]

Hi deck1134,
The Flaw in the argument is that it assumes an 'or' when it might also be an 'and', so more accurately it should say 'and/or'. Essentially, the argument is trying to say you need a minimum of one of 2 things in order to participate in the band. But only needing a minimum of one of 2 things doesn't automatically mean that no one is going to be able to fulfill both of those things.

Answer D follows the same flawed logic. It presents an "or" for being informed about current events, but then it jumps to assuming that because someone definitely fulfills one of the "or" statements she automatically cannot fulfill the other one.
Hope that helps,
Malila

[danimcca]

Hi!

Does this question have condition statements? If so can you explain how they will apply to the correct answer.
Participate in regional band ---> practice or talent
participate in regional band ---> talented, Does not practice hard

Thanks!

[James Finch]

Hi Dani,

Absolutely, this is a 100% conditional stimulus. The first sentence would be diagrammed as:

Participate in Regional Band Practice Very Hard or Very Talented

Then we're told that Lily is in the regional band and very talented, leading to the invalid conclusion that she can't practice very hard. Why is this invalid? "Or" in LSAT conditional statements can be inclusive of "and" unless explicitly said otherwise, although it doesn't have to be; think of it as meaning "at least one of" by default. So Lily's being in the regional band means that she must at least practice very hard or be very talented, but both could be true. Knowing that she's very talented thus tells us nothing about whether she practices very hard or not.

Hope this clears things up!

[theamazingrace]

I was stuck between D and E. I choose D because I thought it fit better but I want to make sure I know why E is wrong. What is E missing?

Thanks

[Adam Tyson]

The stimulus is built around a conditional statement with one sufficient condition and two necessary conditions joined with an "or", meaning that at least one is necessary but allowing for the possibility of both. The argument then tells us that because the sufficient condition and one of the two necessary conditions occurred, the other necessary condition cannot have occurred. Since it is possible that both necessary conditions occur, this is an unsupported conclusion. It's not a classic conditional flaw, like a mistaken reversal or mistaken negation, but just an unsupported conclusion. I might actually classify it as a type of evidence flaw rather than a conditional flaw, because there is no evidence offered that actually supports the conclusion.

Answer E doesn't match this structure because it does not tell us that the sufficient condition has occurred, and instead of telling us that one of the two necessary conditions did occur it tells that one of them did not occur. That's a mismatch on two count.