Video

The passage starts by stating that only a minority of those who engage in political action do so out of a sense of social justice. There is a reason LSAC has used the phrase "only a minority." They want to get you to think about what the majority is doing. Therefore, if the minority of people who engage in political action do so out of a sense of social justice, then the majority of people who engage in political action do not do it out of a sense of social justice. Then it concludes from this that some people who have a sense of social justice do not engage in political action. What the conclusion of the passage does is switch and negate the variables. Sounds like a contrapositive, right? Well, we know that quantity statements do not have contrapositives. Therefore, if the principle statement is: EPA-most-not SSJ All we can do is switch it to be: not SSJ-some-EPA Answer choice (A) has the principle rule: Most scholars are not motivated by a desire to win prestigious academic prizes: S-most-not WAP The conclusion in answer choice (A) again tries to make the contrapositive of the principle rule by switching and negating the principle rule to be: Some people who do want to win prestigious academic prizes are not scholars: WAP-some-not S Again, quantity statements don't have contrapositives. All we can conclude from the principle rule in answer choice (A): "S-most-not WAP" is "not WAP-some-S" because you can switch the variables of a MOST statement to a SOME statement. The flaw in both answer choice (A) and the stimulus is that a contrapositive is being concluded when quantity statements cannot have contrapositives. Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Very helpful

I understand you explanation and I appreciate your explanation. I have just got one further question for you just to clarity please: I know and understand that they are assuming that there is a contrapostive when you can't make a valid constrapositive of the question. However, in the stem they are "changing" different parts of the statement into the contrapostive. for example in the stem it goes from: PA - most- not SJ SJ - some- PA and in A its S-most not WP WP - some - not S They are trying to use a contra-postive but they are using it one different parts of the statement (for the want of better terms sorry). so it is enough that they tried to do a contra postive it doesn't have to be exactly the same parts of the statement that is changed in the contra-postive, right?