Finding a sufficient assumption - Real LSAT Question & Explanation - Test 73

No video

Finding a sufficient assumption - Real LSAT Question & Explanation - Test 73 - Difficulty 5/5

Рет қаралды 748

Күн бұрын

Watch Nathan attack a Sufficient Assumption question from Test 73 in this comprehensive explanation.
The argument’s conclusion is, “The chair should not have released the report.” But it’s supported by only one premise: The chair didn’t consult anyone before releasing the report.
That’s a bad argument-not consulting anyone doesn’t necessarily mean you shouldn’t release a report. So how do we make it work? We find a sufficient assumption.
Sufficient Assumption questions are predictable. The correct answer will simply connect the evidence to the conclusion. Here’s our prediction: “The chair should release the report only if she consults at least one other member of the commission.”
🔍 Key Topics Covered:
How to approach Sufficient Assumption questions.
Learn more about making predictions and solving Sufficient Assumption questions ➔ • Logical Reasoning: Suf...
🔗 Explore:
Create a free Demon account and use our Scholarship Estimator tool to see what LSAT score you might need to earn a full-tuition scholarship and go to law school for free: www.lsatdemon....
📚 Subscribe and Stay Updated:
Subscribe to our channel and turn on notifications for more in-depth explanations of LSAT questions, law school admissions, and test prep strategies.
Stay ahead in your LSAT prep with our expert guidance and resources.
Don’t pay for law school!
Create your free LSAT Demon account today and start drilling real LSAT questions: www.lsatdemon....
#LSATDemon #lsatpreparation #lawschool #lawstudent #futurelawyers #lsatquestions #lsatstudying #lsatprep #logicalreasoning #lsattips #LSAT

Пікірлер: 4

@robertmartinez3895 4 ай бұрын

Ok, so Answer C states "the chairperson would not have been justified in releasing the commission's report if any members of the commission had serious reservations about the report's content." Since the chairperson did not consult, she could not have known if any members of the commission had reservations about it. Doesn't it make sense to say that she shouldn't have released the report because she did didn't know if there was a possible objection? So that was my thought process and I was wondering if you could explain why it's wrong. Subscribed to the Demon btw, its helped me a ton!

@LSATDemon 4 ай бұрын

Sure! Any members having reservations is sufficient to say he's not justified. Just because he doesn't know doesn't mean he isn't justified. The only thing that's sufficient is members having reservations, which, based on the passage, we have no idea if it's true. So, no, we cannot say he shouldn't have released it. The sufficient condition hasn't been met.

@saintk3y331 4 ай бұрын

Can you explain why A was correct in a simpler form?

@LSATDemon 4 ай бұрын

Sure! The conclusion says they shouldn't have released the report. Why? Because they didn't consult any members of the commission. But why does that mean they shouldn't have released the report? A bridges that gap: If they should release the report only if they consult most members of the commission, then they shouldn't release the report. They didn't consult any of the members.