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
September 2016 LSAT
Voter: Our prime minister is evidently seeking a job at an international organization. Anyone seeking a job at an int...
on December 20 at 07:03PM
on December 20 at 07:33PM
Hi Lucas, thanks for bringing this question up.
This passage is a classic example of making a conditional reasoning error. In this specific instance, the passage makes a conditional statement, and then confuses the necessary and sufficient when making a conclusion. Let's see how:
Premise: Seeking job at international organization - > Spend lot of time travelling abroad
So far this is just a regular conditional statement, but now look at what they do with the conclusion.
Conclusion: Spend lot of time travelling abroad - > Seeking job at international organization
This is clearly an incorrect interpretation of necessary and sufficient. Spending lots of time travelling is a necessary prerequisite for seeking a job at an international organization. However, it is not sufficient to determine that someone is seeking a job at an international organization. It has this all mixed up.
Just because we have the following:
A - > B
Does not mean we can conclude
B - > A
The only things we know from A - > B are: A - > B and Not B - > Not A.
Answer choice D makes the exact same mistake as the passage:
Premise: Negotiating personal loan - > Go to bank
Conclusion: Go to bank - > Negotiating personal loan
I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Posting to the forum is only allowed for members with active accounts.