June 2010 LSAT Section 5 Question 18

Based on the passage, it can be concluded that the author and Broyles-González hold essentially the same attitude toward

Mary-McKillop on May 13, 2020

Example #1

In example #1 the video says that for wbc-some-p, that p is the sufficient condition, and so p->i and wbc-some-p pass both rules. I understand why this makes sense but I thought from earlies in the video that the"left side" was supposed to match and that the left side of those statements was the sufficient condition. Is it that in "some" statements the right side is the sufficient condition? Thanks!

Replies

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

Already have an account? log in

Lea on May 22, 2020

I am wondering the same thing!

Skylar on May 28, 2020

@Mary-McKillop and @Lea, happy to help!

When we say "sufficient condition," we are only referring to the variable's role in the Sufficient->Necessary statement. We are not referring to the side it is on in the quantifier statement.

So, P is the sufficient condition in Example #1 because of the statement P->I.

To make a valid deduction here, we need an S->N statement (which we have in P->I) and a quantifier statement (which we have in WMBC-some-P). We want to connect the two so that whatever is the sufficient condition in the S->N statement is the variable that the two statements share. In this case, that is P. We then want to connect the two statements so that the arrow points away from the quantifier.

Doing so gives us: WMBC-some-P->I
We can simplify this to: WMBC-some-I

Does that make sense? Please let us know if you have any other questions!