June 2010 LSAT Section 5 Question 18
Based on the passage, it can be concluded that the author and Broyles-González hold essentially the same attitude toward
5 Replies

Mehran on February 10, 2018
Because of the quantifiers that also appear in these statements which takes them out of the S & N realm.For example, "Only a few always do their own research before investing."
While this does have "only" it is not a S & N statement due to the presence of "few."
Hope that helps!
Robert on May 29, 2019
Hey, so I can get all the contrapostives from the drill practice I can get the premise contrapostives and the conclusion contrapostibes but I still don't know how to get the missing premise ?example
d ->a
c->d
missing premise ? comes from where
Not x->a

Ravi on May 30, 2019
@sigmajonez14,Great question. Let's take a look.
D - >A (not A - >not D)
C - >D (not D - >not C)
:
Conclusion: Not X - >A (not A - >X)
We need to add a premise that allows us to chain everything up.
not A - >not D - >not C
We need to go from not A - >X, so if we add not C - >X, we can arrive at
our conclusion.
The missing premise is not C - >X (not X - >C).
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any questions!
Robert on May 30, 2019
on the missing premise do we just put in Xfrom the contrapostives could it be not a ->not d->not c->x
basically you are just working from the contrapostives and trying to link the first cp with the last and link them

Ravi on May 31, 2019
@sigmajonez14, right. We look at the original and the contrapositive for each premise and the conclusion and figure out how to best chain it all together.