Large inequalities in wealth always threaten the viability of true democracy, since wealth is the basis of political ...

Mehran October 8, 2013

Let's break down the argument in the stimulus first:

Principle #1: "Wealth is the basis of political power."

PP ==> W
not W ==> not PP

Principle #2: "True democracy depends on the equal distribution of political power among all citizens."

TD ==> EDPP
not EDPP ==> not TD

Conclusion: "Large inequalities in wealth always threaten the viability of true democracy."

not EDW (i.e. not equal distribution of wealth) ==> not TD

This is a valid contrapositive transitive argument. If wealth is the basis of political power and we have large inequalities in wealth, then it follows that we do not have an equal distribution of political power among all citizens. Not having an equal distribution of political power among all citizens is sufficient for not having a true democracy.

not EDW ==> not EDPP ==> not TD

Now let's take a look at answer choice (E):

Principle #1: "Good health depends on regular moderate exercise."

GH ==> RE
not RE ==> not GH

Principle #2: "Adequate leisure time is essential to regular exercise."

RE ==> ALT
not ALT ==> not RE

Conclusion: "Repeated encroachments on one's leisure time by a demanding job interfere with the requirements of good health."

not ATL ==> not GH

This is also a valid contrapositive transitive argument. We know that repeated encroachments on one's leisure time by a demanding job means that we do not have adequate leisure time, which is required for regular exercise, which in turn is required for good heath.

not ATL ==> not RE ==> not GH

Hope this helps! Since this question is very visual, we will also upload a video explanation for this question by the end of the day tomorrow.

Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Batman October 8, 2013

Thanks bunch!!!!

Batman October 8, 2013

Oh wait! Shouldn't it be "wealth ===> political power" rather than "pp====>w" ? Since the phrase "wealth is basis of political power" doesn't have sufficient or necessary conditions.. If, when, only... Shouldn't subject(wealth) is sufficient as like "true democracy(subject=sufficient) depends on equal distribution..."?

I'm still confused with finding sufficient word....

Batman October 8, 2013

Does "be the basis of" happen to introduce necessary condition???

Mehran October 8, 2013

The diagram is correct. "Wealth is the basis of political power" means that without wealth you cannot have political power (i.e. wealth is necessary to political power):

PP ==> W
not W ==> not PP

Hope this helps! Video explanation being uploaded as we speak so it will be live within the app very shortly.

Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Batman October 8, 2013

I really appreciate!!!! You make me vividly understood!!! Supercool!!!!

Mehran October 8, 2013

My pleasure! The video explanation for this question is now live inside of LSATMax.

Hope this helps! Let us know if you have any other questions.

stormbeeler September 2, 2015

So are we making the deduction that not EDW means the same as not W and not PP means the same as not EDPP. I have watched the video several times and still got lost when completing the chain. Thanks

Naz September 5, 2015

It's not that "not EDW" is the same thing as "not W," it's that we know from the contrapositive of the first principle rule that "not W" leads to "not PP," so "not EDW" leads us to "not EDPP," which we know from the contrapositive of the second principle rule will lead us to "not TD." On the other hand, "not PP" is not the same thing as "not PP." Remember that a necessary condition will never lead us to anything else; "not PP" is the necessary condition of the contrapositive of the first principle rule.

Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.