#22 - Counselor: To be kind to someone, one must want that

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[mikrnej]

Hi there!

Could you please explain this problem? I had such difficulty on it, and these question types in general. If possible, could you also explain how to approach problems such as this? I have an understanding of the inferences you can make ("some" and "most" inferences), but I would like a better understanding.

Since this is a must be false, all of the incorrect answer choices are could be trues, correct? Diagramming tends to get complicated, especially for this problem, but any guidance helps!

Thank you!

[Brook Miscoski]

Well, Mike, isn't that stimulus alot of fun. I think the first time I read it, my brain posted a "do not care" sign and deleted it immediately. It's truly the stuff of horror, babble dressed up in formal logic.

Sadly, it's nice to get these questions right anyway, so we have to cope. This is how I proceed through a nightmare like this question.

1. There is some conditional reasoning.
2. There are some statements of probability or possibility.

Those are both things we know how to do.

Stimulus analysis:

Kind-->Want Prosper; Not Want Prosper--> Not Kind
Dislike--some--respect
Dislike-->not Content Presence; Content Presence-->Not Dislike
Not Dislike-->Kind; Not Kind-->Dislike

Inferences:

Content Presence-->Not Dislike-->Kind-->Want Prosper
Not Want Prosper-->Not Kind-->Dislike-->Not Content Presence

Ignore existence questions and other questions that belong in philosophy class and not on the LSAT. This is a test of taking a test.

Now, I have my conditions and an inference, and the question asks me what must be false. Therefore, we want something that contradicts the stimulus.

(A) Seems weird, but not contradictory.
(B) Stimulus was Content Presence-->Want Prosper (an "all" concept). This choice says Content--some--Not Want Prosper. That contradicts, so this is the correct choice.
(C) respect not linked in--eliminate.
(D) Seems weird, but not contradictory.
(E) respect not linked in--eliminate.

There you go. Try to choose short descriptions but not change the language that the stimulus is using--for instance, the logical opposite of "dislike" is "not dislike," so don't shorten that to "like" versus "dislike."

It's not weird to hate these questions, and finding them annoying to focus on doesn't mean you can't be good at them.

[mikrnej]

Thanks for answering my question! It makes more sense now.

Just to clarify, "may nevertheless" in the second sentence indicates probability?

[James Finch]

Hi Mikrnej,

The "may" actually indicates a possibility, which doesn't actually factor into the conditional chain that Brook has diagrammed out above. It's used here with one of the relevant conditions ("dislike") as a red herring to confuse test-takers. The key to this question is to quickly diagram out the the chain given by the other premises:

FC DL K WP

And see which of the answer choices, as a Cannot be True, contains incompatible conditions. Answer choice (B) does this, and is correct.

[mtc5893]

"(C) respect not linked in--eliminate."

Can't you link in the "dislike some respect" with the contrapositive chain to get that "some respect not content" In which case, you can eliminate c because it must be true? Sadly I got this question wrong because I think I chose c because I misread the question as asking for what must be true.

[Brook Miscoski]

mtc,

If you look at the stimulus, the statement about dislike and respect was that people who dislike each other may still respect each other. That means it's not impossible, but it doesn't guarantee that there are any people who both dislike and respect each other. So, you can't link it to the conditional statements.

I should have described that sentence as:

dislike--may--respect,

as this was the "...some statements of probability or possibility" I was referencing. I did the typing version of misspoke by using "some." Sorry.

[jdavidwik]

Stimulus analysis:

Kind-->Want Prosper; Not Want Prosper--> Not Kind
Dislike--some--respect
Dislike-->not Content Presence; Content Presence-->Not Dislike
Not Dislike-->Kind; Not Kind-->Dislike

Inferences:

Content Presence-->Not Dislike-->Kind-->Want Prosper
Not Want Prosper-->Not Kind-->Dislike-->Not Content Presence

Ignore existence questions and other questions that belong in philosophy class and not on the LSAT. This is a test of taking a test.

Now, I have my conditions and an inference, and the question asks me what must be false. Therefore, we want something that contradicts the stimulus.

(A) Seems weird, but not contradictory.
(B) Stimulus was Content Presence-->Want Prosper (an "all" concept). This choice says Content--some--Not Want Prosper. That contradicts, so this is the correct choice.
(C) respect not linked in--eliminate.
(D) Seems weird, but not contradictory.
(E) respect not linked in--eliminate.

There you go. Try to choose short descriptions but not change the language that the stimulus is using--for instance, the logical opposite of "dislike" is "not dislike," so don't shorten that to "like" versus "dislike."

It's not weird to hate these questions, and finding them annoying to focus on doesn't mean you can't be good at them.

I valued this analysis. I eliminated down to A, B and D. Based on the Inferences noted above, A (by Dislike>Not Content Presence) and D (by ~Dislike >Kind>Want Prosper) also seemed to be contradictory. Correct answer "B" actually seems like more of a logic stretch to me, although I see how it is contradictory. Is there any way to firmly convince oneself of such an answer on test day? I still feel unsettled, even though the explanation cleared up a lot of this question for me, as this is the most challenging question I have tried in a while.

[Brook Miscoski]

jdavidwik,

Your basis for both (A) and (D) is a Mistaken Negation. The way to be more secure on test day is to hold the stimulus to what it says and apply the techniques not only to find but also to avoid making your own Mistaken Negations and Mistaken Reversals. When you do that, answer choices like (A) and (D) will seem like Losers rather than Contenders.

[jdavidwik]

Thank you! I was not thinking about contrapositives in the correct manner. After covering this example and others, as well as reading Dave Killoran's post of 5/20/11 under "Contrapositive Help", this subject is clearer.