June 2006 LSAT Section 2 Question 7

Any fruit that is infected is also rotten. No fruit that was inspected is infected. Therefore, any fruit that was ins...

Elizabeth25 on April 21 at 04:14PM

diagraming

I believe I diagramed correctly but somehow got thrown off by the 1st premise. is it safe to say that the 1st premise was not important in finding the correct ans.? The 1st premise would have been diagramed (In->R) 2nd would have been (FI->NOT In) conclusion (FI->STE) and the answer FI->STE. which to me has nothing to do with the 1st premise because we had to find something to connect FI to STE.

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

Already have an account? log in

Emil-Kunkin on April 23 at 05:28PM

I think that's fair to say that the first premise was a bit of a red herring! Sometimes there will be some information that's extraneous. I think it's helpful to focus on what the job is: here our job is just to guarantee the conclusion is correct. If we can do that without referencing one of the premises, we still did the job.