LSATMax and COVID-19:
Amid these difficult times, we're lowering the price on all courses.
Free LSAT Practice
LSAT Practice Test
LSAT Practice Test Videos
eBook: The Road to 180
Law School Top 100
LSAT Test Proctor
LSAT Logic Games
Apple App Store
Digital LSAT Simulator
Campus Rep Internship
Fee Waiver Scholarship
LSAT Test Dates
LSAT Message Board
June 2017 LSAT
If ecology and the physical sciences were evaluated by the same criteria, ecology would fail to be a successful scien...
on September 17, 2019
Why is E correct? Why is C incorrect?
on September 20, 2019
Let's break down the argument to see which answer choices follow the same format.
If ecology was evaluated like a physical science (EPS), then it would be unsuccessful (US).
If EPS - - - - -> US
But ecology is a successful science. Therefore it is not being evaluated like a physical science.
not US - - - - -> not EPS
Basically, the passage eliminated the necessary condition (US), which in turn eliminates the sufficient condition (EPS).
You asked why E is correct. I'll diagram it the same way.
If any economic theory were an adequate description (A), then it would be possible to make accurate forecasts (P).
If A - - - - -> P
But it is not possible to make accurate forecasts (This eliminates the necessary condition P). Therefore no economic theory is an adequate description (which eliminates the sufficient condition A).
not P - - - - - -> not A
Make sure to practice your conditional reasoning, including contrapositives like we saw in this example.
Answer choice C does not follow this same pattern.
If future cars are made lighter and stronger (LS), then the number of fatalities will be reduced (FR).
If LS - - - - > FR
It is obvious that future cars will be made lighter and stronger. Therefore fatalities will be reduced.
LS - - - - - > FR
This does not create a contrapositive. It only fulfills the conditional statement from the first sentence.
Posting to the forum is only allowed for members with active accounts.