This question

Started by Viviana · started 2013-10-06 18:57 · last activity 2018-10-17 03:12 · 5 replies

I don't know why I'm mot getting it, but I'm blind to the logical connection to the answer on this one. Maybe I'm mislabeling but I can't seem to see it. Help please.

Replies

  1. Batman · 2013-10-14 06:10

    Hi, I'm not pretty sure whether I'm not allowed to help another student, but I will give you a hand. LSAT Max staffs do not hesitate to ask me not to do this if I'm against your policy. ^^ (1) Rose(R) - - -> Stunning Display of Color(SDC) (2) Worth Growing in Garden(WGG) - - - > Smell Sweet Flower(SSF) (3) Roses < - - Some - - > Not Scent (4)SDC< - - -R < - - Some - - -> Not Scent Here is a tricky part that you might miss: The opposite meaning of "Smell Sweet Flower" is... guess what? "Smell Not Sweet Flower?????" NO!! We as a LSAT test takers must play with meaning of words under the argument flow of the questions. So, Let's find out what is the closest meaning of opposite of "Smell Sweet Flower" in the question. Yes!!! "No Scent" Sounds awkward though, it is not logically wrong. Now you follow me? Then let's turn your attention to number (2) above. Not SSF = Not Scent Then, contrapositive of (2) is (5) "Not Scent - - - > Not WGG" Let's get all those together then. (4) + (5) : SDC < - - -R < - - Some - - ->Not Scent - - -> Not WGG = SDC< - - Some - - > Not Scent - - > Not WGG = SDC< - - Some - - > Not WGG Hope, this is helpful for you. Please, LSAT MAX guys correct me if I'm wrong!
  2. Mehran · 2013-10-15 05:46

    The video explanation for this question is now live inside of LSATMax. Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
  3. Michael-Fearon · 2018-10-15 22:30

    I'm a little confused about why "worth growing in a garden" isn't negated. "Only" introduces a necessary condition, which in this example is "flowers that smell sweet." I thought the rule indicates that the sufficient variable, "worth growing in a garden," should be negated. Please let me know, thanks!
  4. Michael-Fearon · 2018-10-15 22:44

    I'll clarify my question: I thought in one of the rules where a necessary condition is introduced, the sufficient variable was negated. Maybe I'm wrong there--looking for help on this!
  5. Mehran · 2018-10-17 03:12

    @Michael-Fearon that is correct but it wasn't "only"; you are thinking of the rule for "unless". Make sure you spend the time to memorize all the S & N keyword indicators. You should know them like the back of your hand. Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Sign in to reply.