Most difficult question

@nikki0218, Some questions on the LSAT are extremely difficult—that's done intentionally by the makers of the test. Let's take a look at this question. Looking at the stimulus, we can break it down into 3 diagrams. 1. problems not solved - >not attract more applicants 2. not attract more applicants - >lower standards or shortage of nurses 3. shortage of nurses or lower standards - >not maintain quality We can link all of these up problems not solved - >not attract more applicants - >lower standards or shortage of nurses - >not maintain quality From the premises of the stimulus, we can see that if they do not solve the problems of low wages and high stress, they will not able to maintain the current quality of care. I would recommend that you review our video lessons on conditional logic to further familiarize yourself with the concepts. This will make questions like this easier for you as you practice more. (E) says, "The current high quality of health care will not be maintained if the problems of low wages and high stress working conditions in the nursing profession are not solved." This is precisely what we anticipated and what can be concluded from the chain we made. Problems not solved - >not maintain quality. This is the conclusion we can draw from the premises, so it's the correct answer choice. Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!

Regarding the diagramming above: I am able to see that the method being used is that you are to do the opposite of what is presented in the lesson. For example the "unless" sentence: what is after "unless" is introducing the sufficient and it is also negated. Everything written before "unless" is diagramed as is. In the lesson, what is taught whatever comes after "unless" is necessary and the other potion of the sentence is sufficient and negated. Is it safe to use the "rule reversal" as you have above in all cases as long as I am doing the opposite of the actual rule (and doing it correctly) or is this passage some type of an exception. I hope that makes sense. Thank you.

Hi @mprezzy, If I understand your question correctly, the two statements are actually logically equivalent. Recall that the contrapositive of ~Y - >X is ~X - >Y, which has the same truth values. So it's the same thing! Let me know if you're asking something else. Hope this helps.