If one has evidence that an act will benefit other people and performs that act to benefit them, then one will genera...

Skylar October 19, 2019

@FergusonKid1020 Happy to help.

First, let's break down the given proposition. It states: IF one (has evidence that an act will benefit other people) and (performs that act to benefit them), THEN one (will generally succeed in benefitting them.) We can diagram this as: HEB + PAB -> SB.

Now, we are looking for the answer choice that best illustrates this principle.

Answer choice (C) is correct because it follows the pattern exactly. The first sufficient condition ("one has evidence that an act will benefit other people") is fulfilled in Betsy overhearing a heating contractor say that regularly changing the furnace filter will keep the fitler efficient. The second sufficient condition (one "performs that act to benefit them") is fulfilled in Betsy regularly changing the filter in her daughter's house. Finally, the necessary condition ("one will generally succeed in benefitting them") is fulfilled in the furnace never requiring maintenance for clogs.

Answer choice (E) is incorrect because it does not follow the pattern as directly. It does not fulfill the first sufficient condition ("one has evidence that an act will benefit other people") because Zachary only "HOPED" that psychotherapy could help, he did not have any evidence that it would. Similarly, it does not necessarily fulfill the second sufficient condition (one "performs that act to benefit them") because Zachary did not technically perform the action (psychotherapy) himself, rather he persuaded his parents to do so. This is subtle, but shows (E) is not as closely related to the given principle as (C).

Does this make sense? Please let us know if you have other questions or would like additional clarification.

FergusonKid1020 October 19, 2019

Thank you so much Skylar. This explanation makes perfect sense. Additionally, now I understand why the LSAT is difficult.