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

Alirenee on June 7, 2020

question 1

Hi again, I realized I was vague in my previous question. For question 1: WMBC-- some -- PC PC ----> P not P ----> not PC P ----> I not I ----> not P Rule 1: I understand this rule applies as there is a S&N scenario Rule 2: I DO NOT understand how PC is the common sufficient condition WMBC -- some -- PC ( I thought this was the NEC) Please help me to understand how PC in this format is the Sufficient condition. Thank you very much AC

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

Already have an account? log in

Skylar on June 29, 2020

@Alirenee, happy to help!

When we use the terms "sufficient" and "necessary," we are referring to a variable's role in the S->N statement, not in the quantifier statement.

WMBC - some - PC
PC -> P

Here, PC is sufficient and P is necessary in our S->N statement. The variable that this S->N statement has in common with our quantifier is PC, which is the sufficient condition in the S->N statement. This is important because when we are combining an S->N statement with a quantifier statement, we want to make sure that the variable that is sufficient in the S->N statement is the variable that overlaps so that the arrow points away from the quantifier.

WMBC - some - PC -> P
WMBC - some - P

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