Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: PrepTest 44 - October 2004, Sec 2, #14  (Read 550 times)

marsilni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
PrepTest 44 - October 2004, Sec 2, #14
« on: July 06, 2010, 10:19:36 PM »
Do I have this diagrammed correctly?

Economy doing badly --> real estate slump & car sales low

no real estate slump or car sales not low ---> economy not doing badly

EarlCat

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2533
  • i'm in ur LSAT blowin' ur curve
    • AOL Instant Messenger - EarlCat78
    • View Profile
    • EarlDoesLSAT.com
Re: PrepTest 44 - October 2004, Sec 2, #14
« Reply #1 on: July 17, 2010, 06:57:53 PM »
Do I have this diagrammed correctly?

Economy doing badly --> real estate slump & car sales low

no real estate slump or car sales not low ---> economy not doing badly

No.  You've essentially diagrammed that no real estate slump or car sales not low is sufficient to tell us the economy is not doing badly.  But the language used in the stimulus is that either of those things is "consistent with" a healthy economy.  But "consistent with" is not the same as "sufficient for."  "Consistent with" doesn't tell us which way the arrows go. 

For instance if I've got A --> B, I can say A is consistent with B, but I can also say that B is consistent with A (even though B is not sufficient for A).

So how do I know you've diagrammed it wrong?  By the way the argument is set up.  The last sentence says "Their occurrence together makes it quite probable that my conclusion is correct.  What's his conclusion?  "The economy is doing badly."

Conclusions go on the right.
 
real estate slump & low car sales --> economy doing badly

economy not doing badly --> no real estate slump or car sales not low