It is clear that none of the volleyball players at yesterday's office beach party came to work today since everyone w...
sharpen7March 2, 2018
Why valid transitive prop?
Hi,
I thought this was a valid trans contra because the first part of the chain was not contra and the second part of the chain was. I am confused by the use of the non contra with the contra to conclude valid transitive and not the valid tran contra?
Can you please explain the difference?
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
@sharpen7 remember, the contrapositive is identical in meaning and while you are correct that we are invoking the contrapositive of the first principle, we are still connecting two principles using the transitive property.
Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
Emanuel-CentenoJuly 10, 2018
Looks like I'm continuously having issues with these questions, where there's no clear and obvious link between multiple conditions, as in when the words don't exactly match in each. Is there a list of questions similar to this one that I can review?
ChristopherJuly 30, 2018
@Emanuel-Centeno, it kind of depends on which part of the question you're struggling with. If it's the transitive property, then continuing to review the Sufficient & Necessary drills will help. If it's this question type in particular, then look at the parallel reasoning section.
The LSAT designers are rarely kind enough to phrase each condition the same way, so this is the importance diagramming each condition and seeing how they work together. When you're reading the question, you need to look at different phrases that are likely referring to the same thing, group of people, or condition. For example, "volleyball players" is the same group as "everyone who played volleyball," so diagram them as being the same thing.
