June 2007 LSAT Question Explanations June 2007 - Sec 2 - LR...

June 2007 - Sec 2 - LR - Q6

Video Transcript:

0:06
Question 6: An undergraduate
0:09
degree is necessary for appointment to the executive board. Further, no one with a
0:15
felony conviction can be appointed to the board. Thus, Murray, an accountant with
0:21
both a bachelor's and master's degree, cannot be accepted for the position of
0:27
Executive Administrator since he has a felony conviction. Alright, so first step: argument
0:34
or facts? Clearly we have an argument or a structural indicator of 'thus'. So, our
0:38
conclusion is that Murray cannot be accepted for the position of Executive
0:43
Administrator. And how do we know that? Well first it tells us two general
0:51
principles. First, an undergraduate degree is necessary for appointment to the
0:56
executive board. You notice 'necessary'. So, we have sufficient and necessary. And our first
1:02
principle is that an undergraduate degree is necessary. So undergraduate
1:08
degree...
1:10
for appointment to the executive board. Contrapositive. Reverse and negate. You do not
1:19
have an undergraduate degree and you cannot be appointed to the executive
1:23
board. The next sentence tells us no one with a felony conviction can be
1:33
appointed to the board. No A's are B's. Again we know that is also sufficient and
1:38
necessary so if you have a felony conviction then you can cannot be appointed to the executive board.
1:47
Contrapositive, If you are appointed to the executive board then you don't have a felony
1:53
conviction.
1:55
So, those are our principles. It then tells us that Murray has a felony conviction our
2:05
premise.
2:08
So our premise here is that Murray has a felony conviction and it takes that to conclude
2:15
that he cannot be accepted for the
2:19
position of executive administrator. Is that a valid argument? And you notice
2:30
the fact that Murray has a felony conviction, our premise, that is sufficient
2:37
in our second principle that no one with a felony conviction can be appointed to the
2:44
board. Its sufficient for not being appointed to the executive board. But did they conclude that
2:51
Murray can't be appointed to the executive board? No, the conclusion was
2:57
that he can't be accepted the position of executive administrator. So you notice
3:02
the jump in this argument. We can properly conclude that Murray cannot be appointed to the
3:10
executive board based on the premise that he has a felony conviction
3:14
because again felony conviction is insufficient for not being for not being appointed to the executive board.
3:18
So the proper conclusion is that Murray can't be appointed to the executive
3:28
board not that he can't be accepted for the position of executive administrator.
3:33
So you notice the jump in this argument. So clearly this is a flawed argument. So now that we
3:41
have a clear understanding of this argument let's proceed to the
3:44
question stem. The argument's conclusion follows logically if which of the
3:49
following is assumed? Follows logically if. This is a strengthen with sufficient
3:56
premise question. And we know that our strategy on these questions is to find the answer
4:03
choice that 100% guarantees our conclusion. Again our conclusion is that
4:10
Murray can't be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator based on the
4:18
premise that he has a felony conviction. But again we know that the proper
4:23
conclusion to draw from the fact that he is a felony conviction is that he can't
4:28
be appointed to the executive board as we've shown here.
4:31
However now if we want to guarantee that he also can't be accepted for the
4:36
position of Executive Administrator which is what a strengthen with
4:40
sufficient premise question is asking us to do well then we have to tie this idea of not
4:45
being able to be appointed to the executive board to not being able to be
4:53
accepted to the position of Executive Administrator. So you notice how we would guarantee
5:02
it is to say that if you can't be appointed to the executive board then you
5:07
cannot be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator. That would
5:13
guarantee this conclusion by closing the gap again because we know that Murray
5:18
has a felony conviction. That is sufficient for not being appointed to
5:22
the executive board. And now we make that sufficient for not being able to be
5:28
accepted the position of Executive Administrator,
5:32
that would guarantee our conclusion. So now let's go through the answer choices.
5:38
(A) Anyone with a master's degree and without a felony conviction is eligible
5:43
for appointment to the executive board. Okay great...
5:49
It doesn't apply to our situation. We know Murray has a master's degree but he also
5:53
has a felony conviction. So (A) can't help us. So (A) would be eliminated. Does not
5:59
even strengthen this argument. (B) Only candidates eligible for appointment to
6:06
the executive board can be accepted the position of Executive Administrator. We know
6:12
that 'only' introduces a necessary condition. So only candidates eligible for appointment
6:18
to the executive board will be our necessary condition. Our sufficient condition would
6:27
be the other part of this statement, 'can be accepted for position of Executive Administrator'.
6:30
So you notice
6:36
were definitely on the right track. It's tying what we know executive board to the jump made in the
6:41
conclusion of the Executive Administrator. So you notice the
6:45
contrapositive would be if you can't be appointed to the executive board then you can't be accepted to the position of Executive
6:53
Administrator is exactly what we said we needed to guarantee our conclusion.
7:00
So (B) here will be the correct answer. Again you notice, why? Because we know
7:08
that Murray has a felony conviction. Felony conviction is sufficient for
7:13
not being appointed to the executive board and now the contraspositive of (B) tells us
7:18
that if you're not appointed to the Executive Board you cannot be accepted to the
7:23
position of Executive Administrator. Well we know that Murray has a felony conviction.
7:29
Allows us to 100% conclude that he can't be accepted for the position of
7:34
Executive Administrator. So we 100% guarantee the conclusion with (B). So (B) would be the correct
7:40
answer. But again just make sure. (C) An undergraduate degree is not necessary
7:47
for acceptance for the position of Executive Administrator. Okay, fine. Well
7:53
Murray has a bachelor's degree and a master's degree. Doesn't help us at all.
7:57
Doesn't strengthen this argument. So (C) is out.
8:00
(D) If Murray did not have a felony conviction he would be accepted for the position of
8:07
Executive Administrator. Well let's take a close look at (D) just to show something
8:11
quickly. 'If' we know introduces sufficient. So if you did not have a felony conviction then you
8:18
would be accepted to the position of Executive Administrator. But the thing is we know
8:24
that Murray has a felony conviction. For me to take that and conclude that he cannot be
8:29
accepted for the position of Executive Administrator is incorrect.
8:35
Don't just negate. We know
8:43
all carrots are vegetables but just because something isn't a carrot doesn't
8:48
mean it's not a vegetable because there's other vegetables in this world.
8:52
So (D) does not help us trap answer. And then just checking (E). The felony charge on
8:58
which Murray was convicted is relevant to the duties of the position of Executive Administrator. Well
9:04
that strengthens the argument. But the problem is were not just trying to
9:09
strengthen it we're trying to 100% guarantee it. So (E) would be eliminated.