Thanks for your message. There is already a video explanation live inside of LSATMax for this question. You can access it by selecting the video icon in the top right hand corner of the screen (to the left of the message board icon).
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
JessamineApril 6, 2014
I am confused by the diagram of the politicians statement. I thought 'all' introduced a sufficient clause, so should the koala not approaching extinction be sufficient? Thank you!
JessamineApril 9, 2014
I got it now.
NazApril 9, 2014
Though it is true that "all" usually introduces the sufficient condition, it is important to look at what the statement is actually saying.
The politician says: "So all that is needed to save the koala is to stop deforestation."
Does this mean that the only way to save the koalas is to stop deforestation? No.
The politician is merely saying that stopping deforestation is one way that the koalas will surely be saved. Thus, since the politician's statements leave room for other ways we could save the koalas, we cannot say that "saving koalas" or "the koala not approaching extinction" is the sufficient condition, because it will not guarantee that deforestation has stopped.
But, since we know that if deforestation does stop, the koalas will be saved (i.e. the koalas will not approach extinction), we know that "deforestation stopping" is our sufficient condition.
Hope that was helpful! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
mj-thomsJuly 3, 2018
Hi,
This description from Melody on 4/9/14 was the only thing I found helpful on this troublesome question. The video description glossed over this maneuver and I don't believe this type of "all" question had been covered adequately (or at all) in the initial S&N video lesson.
She was able to transform what the politician said into: if deforestation stops, the koalas will be saved." Thus making deforestation stopping the sufficient condition (because of the "if") and the koala being saved the necessary condition (as the part of the sentence that follows).
I am curious, will there be times to practice this kind of rephrasing? I could see how rephrasing arguments could go very wrong very fast, but it seems that doing so was the only way to be able to properly diagram the sentence.
Thank you,
Molly
ChristopherJuly 6, 2018
@mj-thoms, best practice is to diagram. That's going to be the most accurate and generally the quickest way to get through these.
That said, I would do what you're saying fairly regularly. If a sentence is just making no sense to me, I would pull apart the pieces to understand what the point of the sentence was and rephrase it in a way that I would say or write it. That can definitely help sometimes, particularly when the sentence is phrased in an odd way.
