#26 - Economist: Countries with an uneducated population

[lathlee]

Yeah~~~~~~~~~~~~ Can I get answer soon plz. thx

[Adam Tyson]

Conditional relationships don't always come with clear indicator words like those found in our materials, lathlee. While those lists are a great tool for starting your journey towards understanding conditionality, because they include some of the most common words and ideas found on the LSAT, they are still just the beginning of that journey. Once you've gotten them down pat, you need to stretch yourself further to find those more subtle, implied conditional relationships.

Consider the classic indicator phrase "people who": this indicates a sufficient condition. Why, though? Because it identifies a group of some sort, all of the members of which have some identifiable characteristic. Any time you find that kind of relationship - a group whose members have a certain characteristic - you're looking at a conditional claim. "Dogs with curly fur" is a group: "are adorable" is their characteristic. The group, then, is sufficient to show the presence of the characteristic, which is necessary.

In the question at hand, we are told that a certain group - countries with educated populations - has members that all have an identifiable characteristic - a commitment to public education. We can recognize the conditional relationship not because we simply memorized words on a list, but because we grasp the underlying structure of the claim.

Consider that structural approach to all LR questions, asking not just what the words say but what they mean in the larger context and structure of the stimulus. Reliance on a list of indicator words as anything other than a stepping off point will prevent you from growing beyond a purely mechanical approach into one that is more critical and analytical.

Good luck, and dig deep! There is much more to see than merely what lies on the surface of these questions!

[cole1998]

Hello, I have a question on C for this problem.

I understand that the lack of 2 premise(s) makes this answer choice wrong. However, I tried to diagram it anyways for practice.

the explanation says it is a mistaken reversal, but I can't see how it isn't a mistaken negation. Here's my conditionality:


Not Give Orders Not Understand Personalities

Give Orders Understand Personalities

I would greatly appreciate it if someone could enlighten me on this.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Cole,

Mistaken negations and mistaken reversals are logically equivalent. Just like a statement and it's contrapositive are logically equivalent. If you wrote it at a mistaken negation, and we wrote a mistaken reversal, you still got the right answer.

Hope that helps!
Rachael