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

fraunfelter7 on January 25, 2018

question

so, I am following along with the pattern and understanding the rules.. the problem I am having with understanding this example is with Rule #2 how you need to have S in common...well in this example yes, corrupt local governments are in all three, but only in one example is it in the sufficient spot, the other two are in the necessary spot..so how does it fulfill rule #2?

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Mehran on February 10, 2018

This question is referring to Example #2.

I am not quite sure I am understanding your question here, so please let me know if I have misunderstood.

Quantifiers are NOT Sufficient & Necessary so the left side of a quantifier statement is NOT a necessary condition.

What these two quantifiers have in common with your Sufficient & Necessary statement here is CNG and CNG is the sufficient condition, i.e. CNG ==> WLG.

So this means we can combine as follows:

SPP-most-CNG ==> WLG

To conclude:

SPP-most-WLG
WLG-some-SPP

AND . . .

PP-some-CNG ==> WLG

To conclude:

PP-some-WLG
WLG-some-PP

Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.