62 LR One Question 15
- « 62 LR One Question 14
- 2021 of 3815
- 62 LR One Question 16 »
Comments
So am i right in saying that her subsidiary conclusion is false, because it switches the necessary & sufficient terms?
Smith says, as you drew:
T —> I
Aka True Meaning of Author Statements —> Insight into Author Social Circumstances
Speaker Subsideary Conclusion:
“So if that is true [T—>I], We should be able to discern at least in part from Smith’s social circumstances [I] the true meaning of her own words [T]
Which would be:
I —> T
So even though the main conclusion is NOT T, which and you can arrive at the correct answer by taking the contra positive of the evidence, am I also correct in saying that Another flaw in this argument is that the speaker’s subsidiary conclusion is flawed because it switches sufficient & necessary terms?
So then bigger picture would it be correct to say that on the LSAT, a subsidiary conclusion can’t always be considered a true piece of evidence, that it must also be proven by the evidence and may contain flawed logic?
As to the bigger picture, absolutely! There's no expectation that a subsidiary conclusion is proved any more than that the main conclusion is proved.
In this instance, the speaker has not confused sufficiency with necessity, though. She's only claimed that the insight would help us discern in part Smith's true meaning. This is correct, and you may see it more readily by example:
A meal is good only if it is nutritious. Thus, we'll be able to at achieve at least part of a good meal by starting with nutritious food.
Here (as in the argument) we're not claiming that the necessary condition is sufficient; we're only claiming that it provides part of the picture.
Make sense?