# 20 - If the city builds the proposed convention center

[Adam Tyson]

That's correct, silver2731, and you're describing what we call the "Mechanistic" approach to Justify the Conclusion questions, which is a powerful tool for prephrasing the correct answer. There is a gap between national professional organizations holding conventions and there being large conventions, so to close that gap and complete the logical chain we need an answer that links those two ideas. Only answer E does that. Well done!

[chickfu]

I identified the correct answer in this question; however, I incorrectly diagrammed the conclusion as:

tax revenues increase convention centre built.

There seems to be no conditional language indicators in the conclusion which is I think what tripped me up. How can I be sure to diagram the conclusion correctly in the future?

[katehos]

Hi chickfu, thank you for your question!

The best way to ensure you diagram statements without specific indicators correctly in the future is to conceptually understand what sufficient and necessary conditions truly are.

Of course, that's easier said than done! In order to help you, here are a few wonderful resources you can review:

• A forum post by Dave Killoran that outlines the meaning of sufficient/necessary (the key to knowing how to diagram when indicators are not present): viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2401&p=6166#p6166

• Every blog post related to conditional reasoning: https://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/catego ... reasoning/

• Another great forum post by Dave further discussing the topic: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=95&p=216#p216

For this specific question, you can also consider how the relationship between taxes and the convention centers is described. In the last sentence, we read that building the convention centers will increase the tax revenues. Let's try thinking about the logical relationship between these two things. If we increase tax revenues, does that mean we built the convention center? No, there could be other reasons why the revenues increased! But, if we build the convention center, do we know for certain there will be an increase in tax revenues? Yes, the last sentence tells us that! With this understanding, you can properly diagram the last sentence (do note, though, that the word 'will' by itself is not necessarily an indicator).

I hope this helps
Kate

[chickfu]

Hi chickfu, thank you for your question!

The best way to ensure you diagram statements without specific indicators correctly in the future is to conceptually understand what sufficient and necessary conditions truly are.

Of course, that's easier said than done! In order to help you, here are a few wonderful resources you can review:

• A forum post by Dave Killoran that outlines the meaning of sufficient/necessary (the key to knowing how to diagram when indicators are not present): viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2401&p=6166#p6166

• Every blog post related to conditional reasoning: https://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/catego ... reasoning/

• Another great forum post by Dave further discussing the topic: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=95&p=216#p216

For this specific question, you can also consider how the relationship between taxes and the convention centers is described. In the last sentence, we read that building the convention centers will increase the tax revenues. Let's try thinking about the logical relationship between these two things. If we increase tax revenues, does that mean we built the convention center? No, there could be other reasons why the revenues increased! But, if we build the convention center, do we know for certain there will be an increase in tax revenues? Yes, the last sentence tells us that! With this understanding, you can properly diagram the last sentence (do note, though, that the word 'will' by itself is not necessarily an indicator).

I hope this helps
Kate

Thank you for the resources Kate. Your explanation makes a lot of sense.