Example #5/ Rule #2

Rule #2 states that the statements must have the sufficient condition in common. To be clear, the two premises must have the sufficient condition in common? In Example 5, the conclusion has the Savings Account (sufficient condition) in common with one of the premises. However, in the explanation, they only mention the Interest Bearing Account portions are in common. Could you please clarify? Thanks!

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

Already have an account? log in

Nate-Stein 06:30PM

@JBRaue, thank you for your question,

Yes. The LSAT is teaching one (someone limited) conception of what it means to be a lawyer. According to the LSAT, the role of a lawyer to argue a case in court. To do so, all of the evidence is placed out on a table for the two parties to look at and use in their arguments, and for the judge and the jury to see. All of the evidence has been previously verified and admitted to court. So the lawyers do not argue about the evidence (premises), but instead use those pieces of evidence to both create their own conclusions, and also to destroy the conclusions of the other side. So, we never argue with the premises, instead, we add them together to reach conclusions. So, yes, as for quantifiers, too, the only thing that matters in evaluating (or creating) a conclusion is whether we can actually add up the premises in this way and come to these conclusions.

Hope that helps and happy studying,
Nate, LSATMax Instructor