The government provides insurance for individuals' bank deposits, but requires the banks to pay the premiums for this...

Mazen on October 8, 2022

Hi,

I reread my previous post and noticed some spelling errors and some needed clarification, so I rewrote it. (Sorry about that.)

I was wondering whether my reasoning for eliminating E is correct, please?

In my own words, E states: per the government's mandate, all the accounts that the banks offer are insured.
Is my rephrase correct?

If it is correct, E should be eliminated because of what I call the "so what test." In other words, even if all the accounts are insured, how would that justify passing the cost of the insurance to depositors? E is, therefore, irrelevant to the question of passing the cost to the depositors.

I ask because I want to see if I am taking a risk by not spending time on the negation test for every strengthen with necessary premise question.

In its initial form as stated by the LSAT writers, E does not even strengthen because it is not relevant, in my mind. Am I correct?

On the other hand, if we were to apply the negation test, E would state the government does allow some kind of uninsured accounts, in which case, but what about the depositors who want their accounts insured!

In its negative form, E - negated - still does not pass the "so what test." In this case what about the insured accounts, what would add to the prompt in a way that would justify the shift in cost to depositors!

Am I wrong and E does strengthen?
An if it does strengthen, then clearly I should have applied the negation test?

I am wary of the negation test, because I am vague on the memory that I came across strengthen with necessary premise questions in which some answer-choices were wrong in that they do not strengthen; yet in their negative forms these wrong choices still undermined the conclusion, which was misleading. Is my memory accurate as to wrong answer-choices that nevertheless undermine the conclusion? (I cannot remember the exact prompts, but as if the LSAT writers were testing to se whether we, the LSAT takers, would apply the first step of testing whether the choice strengthen, before we rush into the negation test.)

Thank You
Mazen

Emil-Kunkin on October 12, 2022

Hi Mazen,

Your rephrase looks good to me. I also really like the so what test (and I tend to use something similar myself with a "Yes, and") in this case. To answer your question more generally, I wouldn't bother trying to negate all five for a necessary assumption question like this. I personally treat these like a must be true (albeit rather than asking us what must be true, it is asking us what the author must believe if their argument is to make any sense). In this case, asking yourself "so what?" for each answer choice is a great way to see if it matters at all.

Negation still can be useful in terms of choosing between two answer choices, or if you want to confirm the one you like, but you certainly don't have to do it for all five.

Mazen on October 13, 2022

Thank You Emil