Which one of the following is given by the passage as a reason for the difficulty a lawyer would have in determining ...

LSATChris on September 27, 2019

I also, don't understand why answer choice C isn't the correct choice. As I've watched the video on that answer choice several times something is confusing.

chelseamurphy725 on October 7, 2019

I agree with the above question. For option C, It says " Lutz's record contains scandalous items.." Yet, Scandalous is negated. Please help clarify as to why this is

Abi on November 22, 2019

Please explain

MarandaEsquire on April 27, 2020

I am in the same boat where I am extremely confused the explanation for answer choice c. Mehran negated sc meanwhile the answer choice did not say to negate c. Please explain.

alicat6 on June 15, 2020

Any explanation to this? Is it a typo on his part? I am very confused as well.

on June 18, 2020

Also confused, to me "contains scandalous items would be "Sc --> MR" and therefore C couldn't be true? Can someone explain what's going on here?

Brett-Lindsay on July 26, 2020

I just typed this response on another thread. I'm pasting it here too. Hope it helps.

Until I watched the explanation, I totally missed that one too. I hadn't even considered that there were two parallel scenarios: one in which Lutz has a large campaign fund and one in which he doesn't.

If he doesn't have a large campaign fund, then we know that there is the possibility that McConnell will run:

not LCF --> Sc --> MR

but when he does have a large campaing fund (LCF --> FA & not MR), all we know is that McConnell does not run. We don't know whether Lutz has any scandalous items or not, though, because that's not mentioned in that scenario.

Therefore, it's possible that Lutz has a large campaign fund and he has scandalous items. In that case, McConnell still will not run against him. If that is true, then C is possible.

Laura13 on September 12, 2020

Question #2 makes absolutely no sense to me. I do not understand how we just assume "Not LCF" in answer C of the question since we don't have any S&N Formulas of LCF and SC, or even SRC and SC. The only way I could slightly understand this is if you were to add SRC-->SC. I just seems like not LCF is just assumed in this explanation.

Also I don't understand the explanation of answer D being the correct one. I only understood that it was the correct answer because it is a direct flaw in the contrapositive of SC--> increase W and not MR (which would be NOT increase W or MR--> Not SC) since answer D states that its Not increase W AND MR instead of OR.

on August 20, 2022

@Brett, I tried looking for an answer to the following question in the Message Board, which many seemed to have asked about, but haven't found an answer yet.

Why was "C: Lut'z record contains scandalous items, and McConnell does not run against him" turned into -SC > MR?