Only an expert in some branch of psychology could understand why Patrick is behaving irrationally. But no expert is c...
ishadoshiAugust 12, 2019
Choice A and B
I did not understand the explanation of why A and B are the wrong answer choices, particularly pertaining to her explanation of "someone else's problem does not equal Patrick's own problem". I understand the meaning of this sentence, but did not get how it is relevant to justify that choice A is wrong.
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Remember that when the LSAT asks for a conclusion that can be "validly drawn," we have to come up with one that is logically compelled by the arguments in the stimulus. Now, we have the premises
Uncertain why Patrick is behaving irrationally - > Expert in some branch of psychology
Expert - > Not certain that they can solve someone else's problem
Patrick wants to devise a solution to his own behavioral problem.
Now note that (E) is logically compelled, since certain - > not expert - > not understand.
But for (B) to HAVE to be logically true, we would need "Patrick understands why he's behaving irrationally," and then we could use the first premise to conclude that Patrick is an expert in some branch of psychology. But we aren't given this, and so (B) isn't a validly drawn conclusion.
For (A) to have to be logically true, we would need to know that Patrick's not an expert, or that he's certain he can solve someone else's problem. Then, we could use the contrapositive to show that he doesn't understand why he's behaving irrationally. But again, we're not given a premise that does this, and so we can't validly conclude (A) and it's wrong.
