#18 - Salesperson: When a salesperson is successful, it is

[Steve Stein]

Hi Anna,

Thanks for your response; I'm glad to hear that you found that helpful!

Formal logic questions often have a fairly familiar and recognizable flow: some As are Bs, if you are a B then you are a C, most Cs are Ds, etc. Take a look at a few formal logic questions and you'll see what I mean. Keep in mind also that the LSAT usually only has no more than 1 to 3 formal logic questions per test, so such a question is more the exception than the rule.

I noticed that you have been working with the Logic Games Bible; if you don't already have the Logical Reasoning Bible as well, I am certain that you would find it extremely helpful; in fact, it has an entire chapter devoted to formal logic. What other resources have you been using to prepare?

Let me know--thanks!

~Steve

[Annah]

Hey Steve!

I do have the logical reasoning bible but despite having read each chapter extensively, have a little trouble applying some principles to the questions when I'm taking a practice test. I suppose it will take me some time to get the hang of applying these principles with some ease and efficiency. I've only practised a few logical reasoning sections thus far.
However, I have recently purchased one of the game type training books for LR and I hope that helps.

I don't consult any other resources expect the Kaplan answer explanations from time to time when I'm stuck with an LR question or need some minor clarifications regarding one. I feel using other sources would confuse me further due to the different methods used but the kaplan answer explanations seem to be the only ones available freely, so I do resort to them in times of dire need.

[mpoulson]

Hello,

I just want to clarify to make sure I follow the reasoning correctly. The argument is flawed in that it fails to establish that generating a strong client base requires at least three years in sales. In fact, it fails to establish any specific duration of time necessary to build a strong client base as comfortable living doesn't not necessarily mean success.

V/r,

Micah

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Micah,

Not quite. Here, seeing success and comfortable living as linked isn't the problem. Instead, the problem is that the first sentence tells us that 3 years is sufficient to establish a strong client base, but not that 3 years is necessary. So essentially, the argument is a mistaken reversal. Hope that helps!

[lilmissunshine]

Hello,

Conclusion: Successful >= 3 Years
Premise 1: Successful Client Base

Based on the above diagram, can we say that the stimulus assumes that Client Base >= 3 Years and answer choice (B) attacks the assumption? Thanks a lot!

[Adam Tyson]

In short, lilmissunshine - yes! We break it down in much more detail throughout this thread, but it can be distilled down to those fairly simple components. Nicely done, cutting through all the noise and getting to the heart of the matter!

[BostonLawGuy]

After reading all of the explanations, I am still a bit confused. I have attempted to chain up the logic based on our lessons.

Based on the chaining of logic, I arrived at the following:

Premise #1: Success client base
Premise #2: 3+ years Comfortable in sales
Conclusion: Success 3+ years

LOGIC CHAIN: Success 3+ years client base
I am unsure how to chain up the 3+ years in the sufficient condition Comfort in sales to the necessary condition in the conclusion Success 3 + years.

Question: Does my logic chain make any sense? If so, how do I actually read it to arrive at the correct answer choice?

Finally, is the argument flawed because the author goes from 3+ years being sufficient in the premises to being required in the conclusion?

[Adam Tyson]

Your premise and conclusion diagrams look good, BLG, but the chain you created is not supported by those premises, because there was no premise that said that if you have success then you must have 3+ years. That's the conclusion the author wants to prove, so we shouldn't add it to our chain, but instead should create a chain based only on the premises and then compare that to the conclusion to see if it matches.

In this case, it doesn't match, and the chain isn't even needed, because as you correctly noted, the conclusion is just a Mistaken Reversal of one of the premises (at best, as Steve indicated in his explanation earlier in this thread).

The approach would be different if this was a Justify the Conclusion question, in which case you would try to add the conclusion to the chain by supplying the missing link. In a Flaw question, like this one, just show that it's wrong, rather than trying to make it fit in.

I hope that helps clear it up for you!

[BostonLawGuy]

Thanks so much for your reply. You're the best!!

[scerankosky7]

I understand now why B is correct, but may I have an explanation on how/why D should be ruled out?

Thank you so much!