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

Ohemaa on May 15, 2018

Example #2

SPP-most-CNG (CNG-some-SPP) CPP-some-CNG (CNG-some-CPP) CNG -->WLG SPP-most-CNG--->WLG C: SPP-most-WLG How did you come to that conclusion, shouldn't "most" be switched to "some" since the only way that rule #2 could be satisfied is if you reversed the most statement?

Replies

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

Already have an account? log in

MichelleRod on May 22, 2018

Hey @Ohemaa

Thanks for your question.

We're looking to make a deduction from a quantifier and a S&N statement. Rule #2 in this lesson states that the relevant quantifier must involve the sufficient variable in the S&N statement. We do not need to reverse the quantifier because the rule of having the "S"in common applies to the S&N statement ONLY. It does not apply to the quantifier!

The deduction "SPP-most-WLG" is made from the following two statements:

CNG - > WLG (S&N)

SPP-most-CNG

As you can see, the common variable here is CNG, which is the S portion of the S&N statement. We're free to make deductions without violating rule #2.

SPP-most-CNG - > WLG

We can leave this as "most" because we do NOT have to reverse the quantifier statement.

As a note, remember the helpful trick in this lesson: if the arrow is pointing away from the quantifier, then we are following Rule 2.

MichelleRod on May 22, 2018

@Ohemaa its also good to keep in mind, going forward, that quantifier statements do not have sufficient nor necessary components