#19 - If the jury did not return a verdict, there would

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Parallel Reasoning—SN. The correct answer choice is (B)

This stimulus contains a valid argument that uses conditional reasoning to derive its conclusion.

The argument begins with a conditional premise: if the jury did not return a verdict, there would still be media trucks outside the courthouse. This premise can be diagrammed as:

verdict = jury did not return a verdict
trucks = media trucks outside the courthouse

• verdict trucks

However, we are told that there are no media trucks outside the courthouse. Symbolized as “trucks,” this premise satisfies the sufficient condition of the contrapositive to the relationship provided in the first premise. Since this sufficient condition has been met, the argument concludes, validly, that the jury must have returned a verdict:

• trucks verdict

Your prephrase is that the stimulus presents a valid conditional argument, in which a conditional rule is provided, a premise establishes that the sufficient condition of the contrapositive has been met, and the argument concludes the necessary condition of the contrapositive must also be fulfilled. Additionally, the conclusion is definitive, referring to something that must have occurred in the past.

Answer choice (A): This choice is incorrect for two reasons. First, its conclusion makes a prediction about what will occur in the future, rather than stating what must have occurred in the past. Second, it contains a conclusion resulting from a Mistaken Negation, that can be diagrammed as:

hurricane = hurricane arises off the coast this summer
less tourism = there will be less tourism than usual

• Premise: hurricane less tourism
  
  Premise: hurricane
  
  Conclusion: less tourism

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. As in the stimulus, this choice contains a valid conditional argument resulting in a definitive conclusion concerning something that must have occurred in the past.

buy house = Peter did not buy a house
rent apartment = Peter would have rented an apartment

• Premise: buy house rent apartment
  
  Premise: rent apartment
  
  Conclusion: buy house

Answer choice (C): This choice is a bit tricky, because it presents a valid conditional argument. However, while the stimulus argument included a premise that invoked the contrapositive, the argument in this answer choice does not. A more efficient way to eliminate this answer choice, though, is to recognize that the conclusion depends not simply on the conditional reasoning, but also on Renate keeping her promise. This feature distinguishes the argument in this answer choice from the stimulus argument.

Answer choice (D): This choice also presents a restatement of a conditional relationship, in which the contrapositive is not invoked.

television working = Kay’s television not working last night
movie = Kay would have gone to a movie

• Premise: television working movie
  
  Premise: television working
  
  Conclusion: movie

Answer choice (E): This choice is incorrect because its conclusion results from a Mistaken Negation:

told Manuela = Ralph told Manuela about the problem
Manuela solve = Manuela would have solved the problem

• Premise: told Manuela Manuela solve
  
  Premise: told Manuela
  
  Conclusion: Manuela solve

[LSAT2HARD]

Although it is a quite simple question, the wording sounds very weird.

"If the jury did not return a verdict, there would still be media trucks outside the courthouse." It sounds like "if the jury returns a verdict, there would be a media truck, but if it doesn't, media trucks would be still outside."

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi LSAT2HARD,

Sometimes it can be easier to rephrase things, but sometimes it can lead you astray. When you see conditional reasoning, you need to diagram the relationship given as clearly as possible. In this case the conditional language is in clear if--->then form, so we can plop the terms down without a ton of analysis.

verdict trucks

trucks verdict

We don't want to get caught up in what we think it sounds like it's saying. We want to clearly diagram what it did say.

Hope that helps!