#16 - At the end of 1997 several nations stated that their

[Brook Miscoski]

LSAT180Please,

"At least one" has the same meaning as "some," so eliminating (C) because it said "at least one" instead of "some" is not a good strategy.

For me, the main problem with (C) is that it doesn't show why it is relevant to any of the "several" nations. What defines those "several" nations is that they are the nations that claimed that their oil reserves remained unchanged. Without that reference, the edit you are suggesting still leaves us hanging, whether you use "at least one," "some," or "most," because we have no idea whether any of the specific nations the stimulus considers are affected.

Notice that the correct choice, (B), solves that problem by clarifying that it is in reference to the nations that claimed their oil reserves had remained unchanged.

[AAron24!]

Im a bit confused why E is wrong. Is it because of the z"obligated"If they werent obligated to give them the correct numbers wouldnt that ruin the conclusion. Thank you

[KelseyWoods]

Hi AAron24!

It doesn't really matter whether the countries are obligated to report the changes in oil reserves correctly or not. If we negate (E) to say that countries are not obligated to report the changes in oil reserves correctly, that has no effect on the conclusion, which is that most of the nations reporting their oil reserves were unchanged are probably incorrect. Their obligation to report correctly has nothing to do with whether or not they actually reported correctly because just having an obligation to do something does not mean that the countries are actually going to do it. The conclusion is not about whether or not they met an obligation. It is just about whether or not they reported correctly.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[mab9178]

Hi

When it comes to strengthen with necessary premise questions, this question has brought to my attention a broader issue; one with which I have been struggling for a while; one that, speaking candidly, I have not been to articulate until now!

But before I embark on articulating the issue, I would like to say thank you to PowerScore and its professional, dedicated staff for affording us this forum.

Here it is: the negation-tests are incredibly helpful when it comes to confirming the correct answer-choices on strengthen with necessary premise questions.

However, this test is futile and misleading when an answer-choice strengthens the argument but with sufficient premise. I believe that answer-choice A is an answer choice that guarantees the author's conclusion. In other words, A strengthens the argument but with a sufficient premise.

I am going to explain why I think answer-choice A is a strengthen with a sufficient premise, but before I do, please respond to the broader question of whether the negation-test works to eliminate an answer-choice that guarantees the conclusion. I could be wrong that A does not qualify as an answer-choice that strengthens the author's conclusion with a sufficient premise. Nevertheless, my inquiry is broader than this particular stimulus/argument in that is my inference that the negation-test is not the panacea to all strengthen with necessary premise questions for it does not, or may not work on answer-choices that guarantee the argument's conclusion, hence are answer-choices that strengthen with sufficient premises, in the context of a strengthen with necessary questions?

Now let's talk about answer choice A and its impact on the conclusion of the argument, please.

The conclusion of the argument states: "So most of the nations stating that their oil reserves were unchanged are probably incorrect." Two words are germane to the discussion "most" and probably." "Most" means more than half or more than 50%; and "probably" which means more likely. Ultimately, I humbly think that the word "probably" is what makes the negation-test dangerously tempting!


A states the following:
"For any nation with oil reserves, it is more likely that the nation was mistaken in its statements about changes in its oil reserves than that the nation's oil reserves remained unchanged."

A differentiates the assessment of a nation about what happened to its oil reserves from what actually happened to its oil reserves?

In other words, the government of a nation with oil reserves assesses the changes in its reserves, and based on its assessment makes statements regarding these changes.

The assessments would yield to the statements that either the reserves were changed or unchanged. Reporting a static level in the reserves is more likely to be erroneous than reporting changing one. So by stating that "Any nation" would probably be wrong for reporting a static level in its reserves, A undermines the reports/statements that the reserves did not change, thereby strengthening the author's conclusion.

Any" is synonymous to each, or all." And if all the nations are probably mistaken, then definitely "most" are "probably mistaken," hence the guarantee and what makes A a strengthen with sufficient premise.

Negating A: For any nation with oil reserves, it is NOT more likely (so it is either equally likely or less likely, but not both) that the nation was mistaken in its statements about changes in its oil reserves than that the nation's oil reserves remained unchanged."

Stated differently, if any nation is not more likely to be wrong, so PROBABLY not mistaken, based on negative form of A, then the conclusion would be severely weakened because: per the conclusion "most" (meaning more than 50%) would PROBABLY be mistaken, but we cannot attain that rate when negating A; hence the futility of the negative test.

In retrospect, negating A would yield to "not more likely" so either "equally likely" (which is a probability of 50% for all the nations in question to be mistaken or to be correct) or "less likely" (which is less than 50% likelihood of all the nation being mistaken; in other words probably correct). Either way - equally likely, or less likely - would prelude the conclusion which is probably and therefore more likely!

Having said that, we do not need that level of coverage, i.e., "Any," because according to the argument, "several nation.." so at least two, and the conclusion is "most" of the "several."

The author does not need to believe that "Any..." as A states because the conclusion of her argument is tempered/moderated with "most" of the "several." The standard for the burden of proof for "most" does not need to assume that high of a level of "any," although "any" does GUARANTEE it, it is NOT NECESSARY!

This is it! I know that this post is very long, and for that, I apologize, and hope that it does not deter a reply.

Respectfully,
Mazen

[mab9178]

Hi

When it comes to strengthen with necessary premise questions, this question has brought to my attention a broader issue; one with which I have been struggling for a while; one that, speaking candidly, I have not been to articulate until now!

But before I embark on articulating the issue, I would like to say thank you to PowerScore and its professional, dedicated staff for affording us this forum.

Here it is: the negation-tests are incredibly helpful when it comes to confirming the correct answer-choices on strengthen with necessary premise questions.

However, this test is futile and misleading when an answer-choice strengthens the argument but with sufficient premise. I believe that answer-choice A is an answer choice that guarantees the author's conclusion. In other words, A strengthens the argument but with a sufficient premise.

I am going to explain why I think answer-choice A is a strengthen with a sufficient premise, but before I do, please respond to the broader question of whether the negation-test works to eliminate an answer-choice that guarantees the conclusion. I could be wrong, and A does not qualify as an answer-choice that strengthens the author's conclusion with a sufficient premise. Nevertheless, my inquiry is broader than this particular stimulus/argument in that is my inference that the negation-test is not the panacea to all strengthen with necessary premise questions for it does not, or may not work on answer-choices that guarantee the argument's conclusion, (by answer-choices that guarantee the conclusion I mean answer-choices that strengthen the argument with sufficient premises but in the context of a strengthen with necessary questions)?

Now let's talk about answer choice A and its impact on the conclusion of the argument, please.

The conclusion of the argument states: "So most of the nations stating that their oil reserves were unchanged are probably incorrect." Two words are germane to the discussion "most" and probably." "Most" means more than half or more than 50%; and "probably" which means more likely. Ultimately, I humbly think that the word "probably" is what makes the negation-test dangerously tempting!


A states the following:
"For any nation with oil reserves, it is more likely that the nation was mistaken in its statements about changes in its oil reserves than that the nation's oil reserves remained unchanged."

A differentiates the assessment of a nation about what happened to its oil reserves from what actually happened to its oil reserves?

In other words, the government of a nation with oil reserves assesses the changes in its reserves, and based on its assessment makes statements regarding these changes.

The assessments would yield to the statements that either the reserves were changed or unchanged. Reporting a static level in the reserves is more likely to be erroneous than reporting changing one. So by stating that "Any nation" would probably be wrong for reporting a static level in its reserves, A undermines the reports/statements that the reserves did not change, thereby strengthening the author's conclusion.

Any" is synonymous to each, or all." And if all the nations are probably mistaken, then definitely "most" are "probably mistaken," hence the guarantee and what makes A a strengthen with sufficient premise.

Negating A: For any nation with oil reserves, it is NOT more likely (so it is either equally likely or less likely, but not both) that the nation was mistaken in its statements about changes in its oil reserves than that the nation's oil reserves remained unchanged."

Stated differently, if any nation is not more likely to be wrong, so PROBABLY not mistaken, based on negative form of A, then the conclusion would be severely weakened because: per the conclusion "most" (meaning more than 50%) would PROBABLY be mistaken, but we cannot attain that rate when negating A; hence the futility of the negative test.

In retrospect, negating A would yield to "not more likely" so either "equally likely" (which is a probability of 50% for all the nations in question to be mistaken or to be correct) or "less likely" (which is less than 50% likelihood of all the nation being mistaken; in other words probably correct). Either way - equally likely, or less likely - would prelude the conclusion which is probably and therefore more likely!

Having said that, we do not need that level of coverage, i.e., "Any," because according to the argument, "several nation.." so at least two, and the conclusion is "most" of the "several."

The author does not need to believe that "Any..." as A states because the conclusion of her argument is tempered/moderated with "most" of the "several." The standard for the burden of proof for "most" does not need to assume that high of a level of "any," although "any" does GUARANTEE it, it is NOT NECESSARY!

This is it! I know that this post is very long, and for that, I apologize, and hope that it does not deter a reply.

Respectfully,
Mazen

[Robert Carroll]

Mazen,

You're correct - the Assumption Negation Technique will ALWAYS work on Assumption questions but not necessarily on Justify or Strengthen questions. Dave talks about that a bit here:

viewtopic.php?p=67980#p67980

Further, you're right that answer choice (A) is stronger than it has to be, which makes it incorrect. That's exactly why its negation is compatible with the argument - even without something as strong as answer choice (A) being true, the argument can still work, so answer choice (A) itself is not necessary for the argument.

A bit of a nitpick - your negation of answer choice (A) isn't quite right. Because answer choice (A) is a claim that for any nation, it is more likely it was mistaken than that the reserves are unchanged, the negation is as follows: "There is at least one nation such that, for that nation, it is not more likely that that nation was mistaken than that its reserves are unchanged." Still, that doesn't destroy the argument, so your point stands that answer choice (A) is not an assumption necessary for the argument.

Robert Carroll

[mab9178]

Hi Robert,

First of all thank you very much for your great response.

Second, I am grateful that you brought up the negation. Regarding the negation: you are saying that we need to negate both clauses of the statement, the "any nation" clause, and the "it is more likely" clause, respectively, to "some" (or at least one), and "it is not more likely"; Correct?

It is true that for example, if a conditional states the following: if it's a flamingo, then it is pink; negating (or disproving) such conditional statement would be the example of the existence of at least one white flamingo. And so the white flamingo example of negating a conditional is consistent with your negation because negating or disproving "all," "any," or "each," requires only "some," so at least one example contradicting the principle.

Another example, everyone who is a lawyer went to law school. Negation: Kim is a lawyer although Kim did not go to law school.

HOWEVER, and this where I need help please, based on my studying, I believe that there is another way to disprove a principle/rule/conditional statement: it requires the sufficient condition to stay the same while negating the necessary.

Forgive me but I cannot remember the example that I came across and which conforms to the "other way" of negating or disproving the conditional principle. I think it was about a philosopher's argument! It was a semantic argument! If I were to exemplify it, here is a primitive example: if it is a mammal, then it lives on land. Disproving/negating it: if it is a mammal, then it does not necessarily have to live on land.

This is why I did not negate the "any nation" part. Although I debated negating both parts of the statement, the "any nation" part seemed like the sufficient condition, and the statement interpreted as such: If it is a nation, then it is more likely it was mistaken than the reserves were unchanged.

Again we can negate this statement by showing that there is at least one nation where it is not more likely that it was mistaken than the reserves were unchanged. But what about keeping the sufficient, and negating the necessary to disprove the principle.

I am very hard to offend so please feel free to let me know that I am wrong, if I am, and that my wires crossed somewhere!

Thank you Robert

Mazen

[Adam Tyson]

In essence, both of those approaches are the same approach, Mazen, and both are correct. When you show a single case where the sufficient condition occurred and the necessary condition did not occur, you are also saying that the necessary condition is not absolutely necessary.

I like to think of the negation of any statement as just saying "that's not true." So in a conditional statement, where the answer claims that something is necessary, my negation is "no, that isn't actually necessary; that doesn't have to occur when the sufficient condition occurs." And both of the approaches you described are doing exactly that! Nice work!

[mab9178]

Thank You Adam