June 2010 LSAT Section 5 Question 24

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

Paul-K on January 2, 2020

CAN NOT BE TRUE video-Example 1

Why has he ignored the quantifiers in his design of the graphs? In the first graph, the one from the information in the passage, he ignored the quantifiers, and he did the same with the answer choices. Why has not he represented the quantifiers? Is it because a cannot be true question does not focus on the quantifiers as much?

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

Already have an account? log in

SamA on January 2, 2020

Hello @Paul-K,

The stimulus doesn't contain any quantifiers like "most," "some," or "a few." However, there is an implied "all": All good students learn more than what their parents and teachers compel them to learn. Mehran didn't ignore this quantifier, but rather he expressed it as a rule. If one is a good student, then one learns more than is required. This is a characteristic of all good students.

GS - - - - - > LM

He then built the chain of sufficient/necessary statements from there.

GS - - - -> LM - - -> DPSC - - - - > CC

So, why didn't he write out the quantifiers from the answer choices? Let's look at the correct answer, B.

This diagram tells us that every good student has all of the qualities that follow GS. Every good student derives pleasure from the satisfaction of their curiosity.

B. Most good students do not derive pleasure from the satisfaction of their curiosity.

This is in direct violation of the rules in the stimulus. Every single good student derives pleasure. Anything less than this cannot be true. It doesn't matter if it is "most," "some," or "few." Our rules are absolute, and the quantifiers in the answer choices serve as a sort of distraction. This question is really testing your understanding of sufficient and necessary principles. The wrong answers want you to think that a necessary condition guarantees its sufficient condition. That is not the case, and we would call it a mistaken reversal.