June 2010 LSAT Section 5 Question 14

The author uses the word "immediacy" (line 39) most likely in order to express

hassay18 on February 11 at 03:32AM

Question 3 from Video Lesson - the rapid advances of civilization and the intermingling of ideas one.

For choice E - I thought if A --> C and B --> C, that would logically conclude to A --> B --> (I have done it this way in some daily drills) so then why can't the same rule be applied over here. If we know that migration leads to the intermingling of ideas (M --> II) AND rapid advances of civilization leads to the intermingling of ideas (RAC --> II) then why can we not conclude that M --> RAC? Am I missing something? Thank you in advance!

Replies

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

Already have an account? log in

Emil-Kunkin on February 11 at 10:49PM

We cannot conclude that just because if A then C and if B then C, that all As are B.

All dogs are mammals, and all humans are mammals. Dogs are not humans, and humans are not dogs.

hassay18 on February 12 at 03:49AM

But then what about transitive property?

Emil-Kunkin on February 12 at 02:27PM

The transitive property is that if we know that All As are B and all Bs are C, then all As are C.

If all monkeys are mammals and if all mammals are vertebrates, we know that all monkeys are vertebrates.

This is not the same as what you are trying to do, which is to say that if all monkeys are vertebrates and all pigs are vertebrates, monkeys are therefore pigs.