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

Brittany-Edwards on September 17, 2019

Why 2 'Some' Statements w/ S Condition in Common = No Valid Conclusion?

I understand that there needs to be a S-->N condition in order to properly draw the conclusion in rule #1 and I understand that having 2 'most' statements with the sufficient condition in common is the only exception to this rule. However, why wouldn't I be able to properly draw a conclusion if I had two 'some' statements with a sufficient condition in common (i.e., P: A-some-B; P: A-some-C)? Is it because there's no way to tell if B and C would overlap?

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

Already have an account? log in

Irina on September 17, 2019

@Brittany-Edwards,

If I understand your question correctly, that's right - any time you have two "particular" premises, you cannot make any deductions from there. "Particular" is a premise that uses a quantifier, e.g. some, many few, as opposed to a universal premise, e.g. all As are Bs. For example:

-some cars are red
-some red objects can fly

we cannot conclude that some cars can fly because we cannot infer any overlap between these two groups.

Let me know if you have any further questions.