QUESTION TYPE: Sufficient Assumption
CONCLUSION: Skiff will be promoted if his book is as important and as well written as he claims.
REASONING: Published this year ➞ Recommendation ➞ Promotion
ANALYSIS: This is a trap question. It’s designed to catch people who have an incorrect, rigid view of logic.
We’re trying to reach “promotion”. And the conclusion is “important AND well written ➞ promotion”. You might think that you need both important and well written to join the conclusion to the evidence. But that’s not the case. We’re just trying to show that if the book has both those things, then Skiff will be promoted.
Answer A is correct because it makes the evidence chain look like this: Important ➞ published this year ➞ Recommendation ➞ Promotion
So if the book is important, Skiff will be promoted. In this chain, we only need “important”.
Lets look at the conclusion again. It says that if the book is important and well written, skiff is promoted. If the book is important and well written, is the book important? Yes. And that’s now the sufficient condition we need.
Three of the wrong answers add necessary conditions. Those never help you prove something will happen. They can only prove something won’t happen, when the necessary condition is missing.
- CORRECT. See the explanation above.
- This doesn’t tell us Skiff will publish in time to get Nguyen’s recommendation. It just adds another useless necessary condition Skiff needs to fulfill before getting promoted.
- It doesn’t matter whether Nguyen thinks the book is well written. We already know Nguyen will recommend Skiff once he publishes.
- Same as B. This adds an additional necessary condition. That doesn’t help us prove that the book will be published this year.
- Same as B and D. This adds a necessary condition. That makes it harder for Skiff to get promoted.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly