#16 - Fremont: Simpson is not a viable candidate for chief

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below! Thank you!

[rhjones2691]

Hello,

Is (C) correct due to the word "guarantee?" From my perspective, Fremont is stating that, at minimum, experience in the oil industry is necessary, while Galindo responds that oil industry background is insufficient for success. I missed the word during my read through of the question, and consequently, I missed the problem. I was not thrilled with any of the answer choices, but since I missed a sufficient indicator, I did not consider (C) as the correct answer to this Flaw problem. Thanks!

[lathlee]

Hi. can you guys express conditional nature of Galindo's arguments? plz?

[Adam Tyson]

Hey guys, here's the key in Galindo's argument:

An oil industry background is no guarantee of success.

In other words, Galindo is arguing that an oil industry background is NOT sufficient for success, and he is acting as if Fremont said that it was. That word "guarantee" is a conditional indicator - if one thing guarantees another, it is sufficient for that other thing, and if something is guaranteed, that is synonymous with "necessary." If you argue that one thing does NOT guarantee another, you are arguing that a certain conditional relationship does NOT exist. It's not a conditional argument, but an argument against a conditional relationship.

Galindo seems to think that Fremont said something like:

If you have a background in the oil industry, then you will be a good candidate for the position

The problem is that Fremont never indicated that such a background would guarantee success. Instead, he implies that having that background is necessary. Without that background, he is not a viable candidate. Fremont's argument doesn't appear to be obviously conditional because it lacks any common indicators, but it is easily translated to a conditional statement that might sound like this:

If you don't have a background in the oil industry, then you are not a good candidate for the position

You can see that Galindo made a Mistaken Reversal in his interpretation of Fremont's argument, and that is the flaw you want to see described in the correct answer.

To be clear, Galindo is not making a conditional argument here. Rather, he is misinterpreting a conditional claim made by Fremont and then claiming that Fremont is wrong and that no such conditional relationship exists.

I hope that helps!

[LSAT2018]

In other words, Galindo is arguing that an oil industry background is NOT sufficient for success, and he is acting as if Fremont said that it was. That word "guarantee" is a conditional indicator - if one thing guarantees another, it is sufficient for that other thing, and if something is guaranteed, that is synonymous with "necessary." If you argue that one thing does NOT guarantee another, you are arguing that a certain conditional relationship does NOT exist. It's not a conditional argument, but an argument against a conditional relationship.

I find 'guarentee' confusing at times, so to clarify:
A guarantees B
A → B

B is guaranteed by A
A → B

As for the argument:
Success → Industry Background (Fremont)
Industry Background → Success (Galindo)

Galindo presumes Fremont's argument to be in reverse (Mistaken Reversal) and then argues that an industry background is not sufficient for success. Am I correct?

[Adam Tyson]

Exactly right!

[LSAT Candy Date]

Hi,

Isn't that a mistaken negation and not a mistaken reversal?

Thanks!

Hey guys, here's the key in Galindo's argument:

An oil industry background is no guarantee of success.

In other words, Galindo is arguing that an oil industry background is NOT sufficient for success, and he is acting as if Fremont said that it was. That word "guarantee" is a conditional indicator - if one thing guarantees another, it is sufficient for that other thing, and if something is guaranteed, that is synonymous with "necessary." If you argue that one thing does NOT guarantee another, you are arguing that a certain conditional relationship does NOT exist. It's not a conditional argument, but an argument against a conditional relationship.

Galindo seems to think that Fremont said something like:

If you have a background in the oil industry, then you will be a good candidate for the position

The problem is that Fremont never indicated that such a background would guarantee success. Instead, he implies that having that background is necessary. Without that background, he is not a viable candidate. Fremont's argument doesn't appear to be obviously conditional because it lacks any common indicators, but it is easily translated to a conditional statement that might sound like this:

If you don't have a background in the oil industry, then you are not a good candidate for the position

You can see that Galindo made a Mistaken Reversal in his interpretation of Fremont's argument, and that is the flaw you want to see described in the correct answer.

To be clear, Galindo is not making a conditional argument here. Rather, he is misinterpreting a conditional claim made by Fremont and then claiming that Fremont is wrong and that no such conditional relationship exists.

I hope that helps!

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Candy,

A few thoughts here! Adam was describing the error as he saw it in the argument as a Mistaken Reversal, although above when he used the translated statements that was as a Mistaken Negation.

The good news is that it doesn't matter, to be honest: A Mistaken Reversal and a Mistaken Negation are the same type of error, one where you mix up what is sufficient and necessary. The easiest way to know they are the same fundamental problem? Take a look at the MR and MN of the any statement—they are contrapositives of each other (and so they are functionally identical). So, whenever you are asked for the flaw in any MR/MN argument, it will always come down to confusing conditions, just as in (C) here.

Thanks!

[Flangdoogler]

Hi there,

I can see why C is the correct answer based on the above explanations, but can somebody explain why E is incorrect? Does Galindo not use one instance of an occurrence (ie. Pod Oil's last CEO steering company to brink of bankruptcy) and use that to come to a broad conclusion about the chance of success for all future CEOs? Is it because it is not really considered a "broad generalization" and would instead only be correct if Galindo said something along the lines of "Since Pod Oil's last CEO, who had decades of exp., practically ruined the company, all future CEOs will likely ruin the company"?

Thanks!

EDIT: I think I see it now actually: Galindo is not coming to a broad conclusion that because one guy didn't have success that all others will not have success, but rather because one guy didn't have success it's no GUARANTEE that success matters at all.

[James Finch]

Hi Flandoogler,

Fremont is making a conditional assumption that

Experience Viable Candidate,

or its contrapositive,

Viable Candidate Experience.

So in his argument, experience is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition. Galindo attempts to refute this by doing a Mistaken Reversal of Fremont's conditional assumption and attacking that assumption by showing a case where experience wasn't a sufficient condition for success, as despite having experience, the Pod Oil CEO failed. For Fremont, however, this would be entirely possible, as experience only makes it possible to succeed, it doesn't ensure success. So the flaw here is a Mistaken Reversal, and we should look for an answer choice that reflects that.

(C) does, in classic LSAT fashion, by stating a confusion between sufficient and necessary conditions. Thus it is the correct answer.

Hope this clears things up!