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

@chris_va on July 31, 2019

Nec/Suff.

In the video with the first example, the instructor plugs in the factors to make the rules work. But when first diagrammed, PC is the necessary condition, and its almost as if you make PC sufficient bc originally its not. Almost like they were switched to make the diagram work. Can you explain please? I can clarify if there are questions. Thank you

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

Already have an account? log in

Ravi on August 12, 2019

@chris_va,

Happy to help. When first diagrammed, PC is not in the necessary
condition because it's part of a "some" statement.

WMBC - some - PC

"Some" statements are reversible, so this could also be written as

PC - some - WMBC

"Some" statements do not have necessary and sufficient conditions.
They're statements that give us the relationship between two entities.

Does this answer your question? If not, let us know where you'd like
further clarification, and we'll be happy to help.