October 2010 LSAT Section 1 Question 27

As it is presented in the passage, the approach to history taken by mainstream U.S. historians of the late nineteenth...

Mayaelon on August 2, 2022

Game 2, question 4

I saw that you explained that you cannot assume that just because H is on day 2 that J has to be on day one (which would eliminate the answer), but my confusion lies in the fact that the same logic is not used for the K and L rule..?

Replies

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

Already have an account? log in

Lauren on August 15, 2022

Same, I need this explained as well. Please.

Varaphone on June 28, 2023

Same, in the his rule as it was diagramed and explained in the video.

Emil-Kunkin on June 29, 2023

Hi, these are doing different things. The HJ rule tells us that if J1 then H2. H2 is the necessary condition and we have no clue about the sufficient condition from the fact that the necessary condition occurred. However the Kl rule employs the contrapositive. If the necessary condition fails to occur, then we know that sufficient condition also didn't occur.

Angeliki on August 29, 2023

I am sorry but I am still not understanding because the rules are written the exact same. How come one employs the contrapositive but the other does not?

Emil-Kunkin on August 30, 2023

Because that's how the rules were relevant in those scenarios. In both cases the original rule and the contrapositive are always true, but in one case the sufficient of the original was true, in the other the sufficient of the contrapositive was true.