I'm really confused about this lesson. When you explain everything out I kind of understand, but as soon as it comes to doing it on my own I'm lost.
For question 5 and trying it on my own, there is multiple sufficient & necessary as well as quantifier language that led me to diagram it as T-->M, S-most-M, and M-->D, which led me to conclude S-most-D and T-->D after diagramming everything. I did this because I noticed the sufficient, necessary, and quantifier language, but that wasn't even applied here when the instructor was going through the question.
Do those lessons not apply here now? And how do I know when to diagram questions as sufficient & necessary or quantifier questions when I see that kind of language such as "all", "a majority" and another "all" and when to NOT diagram it as such?
Thanks!
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
The reason that Mehran did not strictly use the S&N and quantifier rules is because this stimulus discusses the trees' ages in relation to one another. This is a bit of an outlier question in that it almost makes more sense to treat it as a mini-logic game rather than a strict logical reasoning question. However, you can do it either way.
LOGICAL REASONING
I'm including "older than" just to clarify exactly what each logical relationship means.
T --> Older than M Not Older than M --> Not T
Remember that we can reverse 'most' statements if we use 'some.'
S - most - Older than M M - some - Older than S
M --> Older than D Not Older than D --> Not M
We can't really combine any of these to make a transitive chain that is helpful, but we can still draw important conclusions from the above.
All tulips are older than maples, but maples are older than some sycamores. This means that some sycamores are not as old as the youngest tulip trees because they are younger than maple trees which are younger than all tulip trees. Therefore, answer choice (E) must be true.
"LOGIC GAME"
T > > D M Most S > > Some S
It's a bit easier with this visualization to conclude that some sycamores are younger than both tulips and maples, meaning that some sycamores are younger than the youngest tulip trees.
As I said earlier, this question is a bit of an outlier. Continue to use what you've learned about S&N and quantifier language, especially while you are still learning and developing the skills necessary to succeed on the LSAT. While you may be able to develop your own shortcuts later or adapt certain techniques that you've learned in new ways, it is more important for now that you focus on your diagramming skills and your ability to recognize and draw conclusions from S&N and quantifier statements.
Hope this helps clear things up a bit. Keep up the good work and please let us know if you have any further questions.
sarashnaon December 18, 2020
Just found the answer to my question I just posted here! Since it is an outlier... I won't be losing any sleep over this one!
