June 2006 LSAT Section 2 Question 7

Any fruit that is infected is also rotten. No fruit that was inspected is infected. Therefore, any fruit that was ins...

gharibiannick on April 6, 2020

Clarification

Infected-Rotten Inspected-NotInfected C: Inspected-Safe to eat NotInfected-Safe to eat would allow us to arrive to the conclusion. so how is it not answer choice D? Is D not saying the contrapositive or the missing link. [Not safe to eat-Infected]

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

Already have an account? log in

SamA on April 12, 2020

Hello @gharibiannick,

This is a strengthen with sufficient premise question, so remember that we need to guarantee the conclusion.

Your diagram of the stimulus looks good, but it seems that you misread answer choice D. "It is not safe to eat any fruit that is infected."

I ---> not S
S ---> not I

This does not allow us to conclude that the fruit is safe. But you diagrammed it differently, improperly reversing the sufficient and necessary conditions:
not I ---> S

Note that even though the inspected fruit may not be infected, they could still be rotten. The necessary condition can exist without the sufficient.

Take a look at answer choice E. "It is safe to eat any fruit that is uninfected."
This is what gives us the diagram you were looking for:
"NotInfected-Safe"

E is the correct answer. Does that make sense?