Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 15:02:50 UTC No. 16633836
>>16633816
(F) Presumes, without evidence, that smaller cars have higher efficiency. They don't. It's the same efficiency just with less mass. Next question.
Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 15:11:35 UTC No. 16633848
>>16633816
>logic thread
I thought this would be about mathematical logic, but no, it's some stupid logic question for high schoolers. How disappointing.
Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 15:55:41 UTC No. 16633912
>>16633816
I think the answer they want is B
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 15:57:10 UTC No. 16633917
>>16633848
increased fuel efficiency = IF
reduced air pollution = RA
dependence on imported oil = DI
smaller cars = SC
IF --> RA
SC --> IF
SC --> DA
IF --> DA
Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 15:59:42 UTC No. 16633923
>>16633848
increased fuel efficiency = IF
reduced air pollution = RA
smaller cars = SC
greater likelihood of dangerous accidents = DA
IF --> RA
SC --> IF
SC --> DA
IF --> DA
Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 16:03:38 UTC No. 16633931
>>16633923
premise 1: IF --> RA
premise 2: SC --> IF
premise 3: SC --> DA
conclusion: IF --> DA
Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 16:42:17 UTC No. 16633972
I think the flaw in the owner's reasoning is that he takes
SC --> IF
and either commits affirming the consequent
SC --> IF
therefore IF --> SC
or he confuses "if" and "if and only if"
SC <--> IF
or
IF <--> SC
not sure which way you would write it
So he does as B says "concludes, on the basis of the claim that one means to an end is unacceptable, that the end should not be pursued". The reason why he concludes that the end should not be pursued is that he erroneously thinks that there are no other means to this end. He thinks smaller cars are the only means to the end of increased fuel efficiency, or to write this in the same style as E:
>presumes, without providing justification, that smaller cars are (is?) the only way to increase fuel efficiency
or to write it in the same style as A:
>presumes, without providing justification, that it would be impossible to increase fuel efficiency for big cars
Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 16:51:50 UTC No. 16633984
Another interesting thing is that A is talking about
SC --> DA
and E is talking about
IF --> RA
As I said I think the flaw happens at
SC --> IF
and not at those other two statements
But as I said, the flaw can be written in the same style as A and E are written. So it seems B is a general description of a flaw which includes all these 3 flaws. So that's another reason why the answer is B, it's analogous to
A) Mike lives in Los Angeles
B) Mike lives in California
E) Mike lives in San Francisco
When the flaw is "Mike lives in San Diego".
Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 17:02:41 UTC No. 16633995
If the flaw is affirming the consequent or confusing "if" and "if and only if" for the statement SC --> IF, then what is going on with A and E?
(A) presumes, without providing justification, that it would be impossible to reduce the likelihood of dangerous accidents for small cars
SC --> DA
(E) presumes, without providing justification, that increasing fuel efficiency is the only way to reduce air pollution
IF --> RA
Could we say the same thing here? That it's affirming the consequent or confusing "if" and "if and only if"? I'm going to have to think about this. What do you think? And which of these three flaws do you think is in the reasoning of the owner and why?
A ) related to SC --> DA
B) related to SC --> IF
E) related to IF --> RA
Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 17:10:52 UTC No. 16633999
>>16633995
>A ) related to SC --> DA
>
>B) related to SC --> IF
>
>E) related to IF --> RA
Well I guess I was being inconsistent there. I just said option B is a general description which includes all three of these. Anyway you get the point.
Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 17:12:38 UTC No. 16634000
>>16633999
>is a general description which includes all three of these
This is my hypothesis. I'm working on it. Looking for comments, opinions, criticism etc regarding all of this.
Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 17:21:40 UTC No. 16634012
There are these "explanations" online, but I think they are pretty bad and conflicting sometimes, as for this question. Reading the explanations for this particular question made me see clearly that the "explanations" you find online for LSAT questions are really just speculation. The people who write them are not affiliated with LSAC, and they are not infallible, not saying the people at LSAC who write the questions are infallible either but whatever.
https://forum.powerscore.com/viewto
https://lsathacks.com/explanations/
https://www.apollotestprep.com/apol
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 13:07:40 UTC No. 16634989
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 13:35:30 UTC No. 16635014
Option A
>(A) presumes, without providing justification, that it would be impossible to reduce the likelihood of dangerous accidents for small cars
SC --> DA is already a given truth, we have to accept the premises as true, the question is about the flaw in the reasoning, ie how he goes from his premises to his conclusion. He says we should not increase fuel efficiency in his conclusion. He thinks IF implies DA, that's why he says that.
The chain from IF to DA in his reasoning is IF --> SC --> DA.
SC --> DA is a premise, we can't change this.
IF --> SC however is not a premise, SC --> IF is a premise.
The flaw is that he erroneously infers that SC --> IF means IF --> SC, affirming the consequent. This attacks his REASONING, not one of his premises.
Option E
>(E) presumes, without providing justification, that increasing fuel efficiency is the only way to reduce air pollution
The premise is IF --> RA.
E is saying he erroneously infers that IF --> RA means RA --> IF but he doesn't do this.