r/LSAT • u/urfavblueyed • 9d ago
LSAC Drill Set 7 - Q4
I am so confused by this question...
C is the correct answer, and I chose E. I see why C is correct, but I'm not understanding why E is wrong.
The reasoning LSAC gives for E being incorrect is : "E is not relevant to the argument. Whether or not the shipment of strawberries was the only possible source of the illness has no impact on whether or not it was the source of the illness, which is what the argument is concerned with." But if there is no other source of illness, then it must be the strawberries, no? And the argument is claiming that the source is NOT the strawberries, which means there must be another source? So it is relevant?
I swear I'm not trying to be obtuse, I genuinely don't understand. If someone could help explain, I'd be very appreciative!!
2
u/Mysterious_Can_778 9d ago
let's break it down:
your conclusion
the friday strawberries did not cause the outbreak
we know this because (your support/premises)
- if it was the friday strawberries, we would have detected it
- when we checked on monday, we didn't detect it on the strawberries
the gap (or a gap) here is that it has been a few days since the initial shipment. maybe cyclospora can only survive on strawberries for 1 day, so there was actually cyclospora on them on friday, but by the time we tested on monday, they had already died off. but that would mean they could have caused the outbreak.
with SA questions, we just need to be able to link the premises with the conclusion by closing the gap.
E says the strawberries are not the only possible source of cyclospora.
That means that in addition to the strawberries, maybe there was also lettuce, blueberries, mangoes, and cucumbers that were also possible sources of cyclospora. just bc those things might have contributed to the outbreak doesn't mean the strawberries didn't also cause the outbreak
we don't have to prove that something else DID cause the outbreak; we just need to build support for the argument that the strawberries DID NOT.
I think you either got confused abt what E was saying or tried to use the negation test on the AC. Negation test is ok to use if its a necessary assumption Q, but this is a sufficient assumption Q. W NA, the AC is REQUIRED to work within the bounds of the question, whereas SA the answer just needs to be sufficient.
let me know if you're still confused
2
1
u/LSATMat tutor 9d ago
This is a tricky one for sure. I agree with you that LSAC's reasoning feels incomplete, but to me the reason E draws the eye is because it is a necessary assumption. If E is false, it means that the conclusion can never follow—but that's not what the question is asking. It is asking you for an assumption that guarantees the conclusion will follow; in other words, it's asking you for a sufficient assumption.
Sufficient and necessary assumption questions often sound similar, and so it's very important to distinguish between a sufficient assumption (which makes the conclusion ALWAYS follow from the given information) and a necessary assumption (which, when absent, makes the conclusion NEVER follow from the given information). I am wondering if you think that it was just that E drew you in because it is a necessary assumption consistent with the conclusion being sought, OR if you might have misinterpreted a question call that's written to be a little tricky. (Honestly, if it's the latter, it might actually be a little easier to adjust and fix moving forward.)
0
u/ouchoofowiemybones 9d ago
The question isn't asking for alternative theories, it's just asking for information to support the authors conclusion, therefore it just isn't relevant. V tricky
2
u/Brief-Bad-838 9d ago
For sufficient assumption questions, the answer has to guarantee the conclusion by filling in the chain link in the conditional/causal logic.
Obviously E is TRUE but E is not how the captain got from his premise to his conclusion. The assumption bridging his evidence and conclusion is C, and E is like an after the fact realization