#25 - Katelin says that we will be hit by a major snowstorm

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[melologos]

I had some trouble with this problem, not only because of its sheer length but also because of the logical forms of the answer.

How would you suggest approaching a pattern of reasoning question like this on the real test?

[James Finch]

Hi Melologos,

The LSAT loves to throw a Parallel and a Parallel Flaw question near the end of an LR section, presumably to kill people's timing. This one actually comes up relatively late as the penultimate question, but I'd still advise anyone running across one of these past the Q 15 mark to skip it and go back to it if you have time at the end. These questions are always more time-consuming due to their nature, requiring careful reading of the stimulus and each and every answer choice, all of which tend to be quite long, and the difference between correct and incorrect may hinge upon a single word. Don't let a single question be the reason that you don't see 2 or more other questions. That said, they can be mastered in a relatively efficient manner if you can learn to take a mechanistic approach, first dividing the stimulus into its constituent parts, then finding the answer choice that contains those same exact parts (including the same scope(s)!)

As to this question itself, it's a bit tricky in that while conditional reasoning is present and important to the stimulus, the flaw isn't a conditional flaw. Instead, it's the faulty assumption that Katelin agrees with the conditional statement that the speaker in the stimulus claims to be true. As with any Parallel question, we need to match the logical parts in the stimulus (including the flaw, if any) 1:1 with those parts in the correct answer choice. So here we need to have an answer choice that has:

1) A belief ascribed to another person
2) A conditional premise in which that person's belief would act as a sufficient condition
3) A probabilistic conclusion in which the author assumes the other person believes the conditional statement to be true, and thus concludes that they probably believe the necessary condition to be true

Quickly running through the answer choices, (B) clearly has all the same elements of the stimulus, making it the correct answer.

Hope this helps!

[jm123]

I was short on time when I got to this question and was in between answer choices B and E and ultimately chose E. Can someone explain what is wrong with E and what is right with E?

I took this stimulus to say someone believes one thing. So they probably believe another thing because that second thing will follow from the first belief.

Answer choice E says:
Dr. Bowder says that eating garlic increases one's alertness. So, since she knows that whatever improves one's circulation increases one's alertness, Dr. Bowder probably believes that eating garlic increases one's circulation.

Is this wrong because it brings in a 3rd element into its reasoning and does not really get to the point that one thing follows because of a consequence of something else? Another thing that may be wrong with this is that it says "she knows."

Answer choice B says:
Bo says that the soil in his backyard is poorly drained, and since raspberry bushes will not grow well in soil that is poorly drained, Bo probably believes that raspberry bushes will not grow well in his backyard.

This means someone believes something (Bo believes the soil in his backyard is poorly drained), so they probably believe another thing because that second thing will follow from the first belief (Bo probably believes that raspberry bushes will not grow well in his backyard because they do not grow well in soil that is poorly drained.)

[Adam Tyson]

Looks like you figured it out, jm. The doctor in answer E already knows something else, but we need a situation where there is no evidence that the person we are talking about knows anything else. We are just inferring that they know some other fact, when they might not.

Also, looked at more abstractly, answer E is about believing in a cause for a certain effect, but in the stimulus and in answer C we are talking about believing in an effect. The stimulus, and answer C, are structured like this:

X believes that A causes B. B will cause C, so X must believe C.

Whereas answer E is structured this way:

X believes that A causes B. C also causes B. So X must believe that A causes C.

[claudiagarin]

Hi there,

I got this question wrong because I struggled with the conditional statement in B. Could someone explain how "since raspberry bushes will not grow well in soil that is poorly drained" is a conditional statement?

Is "since" a necessary indicator?

Thanks in advance!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Claudia!

"Since" is not a necessary indicator (it's a premise indicator!). In this case, there isn't specific indicator language to clue us into the fact that we have a conditional statement. But remember, regardless of whether you have any indicator terms or not, the most important thing for determining whether or not you have a conditional statement is the relationship between the terms. Conditional relationships are very absolute. They tell you that if one thing is true, then another thing must be true. In fact, if you have a relationship that you could re-word into an "if...then..." statement without changing the meaning of the relationship, then it would be a conditional statement.

In answer choice (B), the statement says "raspberry bushes will not grow well in soil that is poorly drained." Can we re-word that into an if/then statement without changing the relationship? Yes! What is it really saying? It's saying that if the soil is poorly drained, then raspberry bushes will not grow well. So you could diagram it like this:

Soil poorly drained Raspberry bushes grow well

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[JocelynL]

Hello,
is it possible to break down each answer choice to their conditional diagrams?

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Jocelyn,

I'll give it a try, but note that Answer Choice (A) doesn't fall neatly into a diagram because it is not built on conditional or formal logic statements.

Answer Choice (A): This answer doesn't employ conditional reasoning or formal logic. There are two premises: (1) Jorge says that today's pollution levels will lead to many species of migratory birds becoming extinct; (2) it is widely known pollution might not be reduced at all. Neither of these premises is conditional or formal logic driven. The conclusion is also not conditional, telling us only what the probability is that Jorge believes the extinctions will occur

Answer Choice (B):

• Premise: Soil Poorly Drained Raspberry Bushes Grow Well

• Premise: (Bo says) Soil Poorly Drained

• Conclusion: (Bo probably believes) Raspberry Bushes Grow Well

Answer Choice (C):

• Premise: People who Say Coercive Force Justified Believe Gov't Should be Abolished

• Premise: Wanda says Coercive Force Justified

• Premise: Wanda probably Believe Gov't Should be Abolished

Answer Choice (D):

• Premise: Good at Math Good at Chess

• Premise: (Chem Professor says) Chemists Good at Math

• Conclusion: (Chem Professor might believe) Chemists Good at Chess

Answer Choice (E):

• Premise: Improve Circulation Increase Alertness

• Premise: (Dr. Bowder says something) Increases Alertness

• Conclusion: (Dr. Bowder probably believes that thing) Increases Circulation

[JocelynL]

Hi Jocelyn,

I'll give it a try, but note that Answer Choice (A) doesn't fall neatly into a diagram because it is not built on conditional or formal logic statements.

Answer Choice (A): This answer doesn't employ conditional reasoning or formal logic. There are two premises: (1) Jorge says that today's pollution levels will lead to many species of migratory birds becoming extinct; (2) it is widely known pollution might not be reduced at all. Neither of these premises is conditional or formal logic driven. The conclusion is also not conditional, telling us only what the probability is that Jorge believes the extinctions will occur

Answer Choice (B):

• Premise: Soil Poorly Drained Raspberry Bushes Grow Well

• Premise: Bo says Soil Poorly Drained

• Conclusion: Bo probably believes Raspberry Bushes Grow Well

Answer Choice (C):

• Premise: People who Say Coercive Force Justified Believe Gov't Should be Abolished

• Premise: Wanda says Coercive Force Justified

• Premise: Wanda probably Believe Gov't Should be Abolished

Answer Choice (D):

• Premise: Good at Math Good at Chess

• Premise: Chem Professors says Chemists Good at Math

• Conclusion: Chem Professor might believe Chemists Good at Chess

Answer Choice (E):

• Premise: Dr. Bowder says Eating Garlic CAUSES Increased Alertness

• Premise: Dr. Bowder knows Improve Circulation Increase Alertness

• Conclusion: Dr. Bowder probably believes Eating Garlic CAUSES Increased Circulation

This was extremely helpful Jeremy, thank you! I didn't even see causality in answer choice E. But I see it now, its because of the active word "increases", which makes something else happen.
I diagrammed the first premise in answer choice C as Coercive force NOT justified. But you just diagrammed it as a regular statement. I'm afraid I'm forcing conditionality in a lot of these statements (something I need to be mindful of). Thanks again!