LR Question 22 Explanation, by LSATHacks
QUESTION TEXT: Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor's…
QUESTION TYPE: Principle
PRINCIPLES:
To receive the award (Franklin):
Exemplary records AND beyond call AND saved life ➞ receive award
To be sure of not receiving an award (Penn):
Exemplary record ➞ Award
ANALYSIS: You must be very precise on principle questions. You’re looking for a very specific outcome. Figure the conditions that will guarantee that outcome for Franklin and Penn, then look for the answer that has those conditions.
Ruthlessly eliminate answers that are missing the conditions. For example, I first eliminated any answer that didn’t say Penn lacked an exemplary record. That’s the only way to disqualify Penn from an award.
___________
- CORRECT. Yup. They both went beyond what could reasonably be expected and saved someone’s life. That is a sufficient condition for receiving an award if you have an exemplary record. So this gets an award for Franklin. Penn is denied an award because an exemplary record is a necessary condition.
- This doesn’t let us deny the award to Penn, because he has an exemplary record.
- If Franklin doesn’t have an exemplary record then she can’t get an award.
- We don’t know if either of them have exemplary records. So it’s impossible to know whether we can give Franklin an award or deny one to Penn.
- If Penn has an exemplary record, we can’t be sure it’s correct to deny him an award. And we’re not told if Franklin saved a life on those same occasions when she went above and beyond what was reasonably expected of her.
Free Five Part LSAT Email Course
Hi, I'm Graeme Blake
Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.
I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle
If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.
---------
Updates:
For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.
Why is E incorrect? Both have the necessary condition, but Penn should NOT receive the award because unlike Franklin, Penn did not save anyone’s life and did not exceed what could be reasonably expected of an officer…
You’ve listed sufficient reasons for receiving an award. But there could be other reasons for receiving an award. The only way to *deny* an award is to have the sufficient condition for denial: “No exemplary record”
As an example, suppose I say: If you eat ice cream, you’ll get full
You can certainly get full in other ways! Likewise, maybe you can get an award if you work 40 hours overtime each week.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.
Thanks for all your great explanations! It makes sense that A is true, but why can’t B be true as well?
As you mentioned, to receive the Mayor’s Commendation you need 1) exemplary record 2) act that exceeded reasonable expectations, and 3) save someone’s life.
Since Penn did not meet the second mentioned condition(act exceeding reasonable expectations), wouldn’t this lead to the conclusion?
Thanks for your help!
Remember, for a concluson to be “properly drawn”, it must follow from the premises with complete certainty. Yes, having an exemplary record is a necessary condition of eligibility. But, you don’t need to save someone’s life to receive the award. It’s part of a sufficient condition: if you save someone’s life, are eligible for the award, and exceed what could be reasonably expected of a police officer, then you receive the award. That doesn’t mean there aren’t other things you could do to receive the award. (B) doesn’t rule out the possibility that Penn fulfilled some other condition that would’ve enabled him to receive the Mayor’s Commendation.
I still don’t see what’s wrong with B. Penn did not exceed what cold be reasonably expected of a police officer, so he should not receive the award. He didn’t satisfy the conditions for receiving the award, right?
There is only one way that we can with certainty disqualify Penn from receiving the award, and that is if Penn lacks an exemplary record:
~ Exemplary record –> ~Eligible to receive award
He’s technically eligible to receive it in (B) because he has an exemplary record. Even if he did not go beyond what was reasonably expected of a police officer when he saved a child from drowning earlier in the year, we have importantly not ruled out the possibility that Penn went beyond what was reasonably expected of him in another situation this year. We also cannot rule out the possibility that there is some other sufficient condition to receive the award, e.g. if an officer risked his life for a fellow officer and was eligible to receive the Mayor’s commendation, he should receive the award.
but the stimulus doesn’t saying “Franklin is eligible for the award and Penn is not.” If the stimulus said that, B would be wrong.
It says “Franklin should receive the award and Penn should not.” We can conclude with certainty that an officer who does not go beyond reasonable expectations or does not save someone’s life should not receive the award.
You’ve got that backwards. Saving a life and going beyond the call of duty is sufficient to say someone should receive the award. But there could be other reasons they should. B is not the correct answer.
For example, if I say: If you are hungry and ask for food, you should get food
That doesn’t mean there are no other times you should get food!
So to diagram:
If exemplary record AND act save life AND exceed expectation -> eligible
if not exemplary record -> not eligible;
_______________________________________________________________________
so to be eligible, you have to meet ALL the sufficient conditions.
Yes, the first part is correct. That’s what I wrote above, right?
However, you’re not correct about eligibility. The first sentence of the stimulus says that “exemplary record” is the ONLY factor for eligibility.
The other two conditions determine whether someone who is eligible *should* receive the award.
I can’t figure out why the “saving a life/beyond the call of duty” portion is sufficient, instead of necessary. It uses the same word – “should” – in both cases. How can you tell that it’s a sufficient conception? Thanks!
Because it says “IF the act saved someone’s life”. “If” indicates the sufficient condition.
Hi, Graeme,
Thank you for posting such detailed explanations! I have a question regarding PT 63, LR 2, Q 22.
“A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Comm if the officer has an exemplary record, but not otherwise. ” in the analysis, you said the exemplary record a necessary assumption for eligibility? Can you explain how you get this, please? I feel the exemplary record is a sufficient condition because it is behind ” if”. Exemplary record—–> eligible for the Comm.
I have a feeling that the trick may be the ” but not otherwise” but I cannot clearly decode this sentence…I am not a native speaker of English and ” otherwise” May have some diff translation in my language which confuses me. Can you clarify the function or the exact meaning of ” not otherwise” here as well?
Thank you very much!
Yolanda
Hi Yolanda,
You’re right – “but not otherwise” is the key. Another way to say this would be “an officer is eligible for the award if he has an exemplary record, but is not eligible if he does not have an exemplary record.”
So if an officer does not have an exemplary record, there is no way he can be eligible for the award. In Answer (A), Franklin meets ALL of the necessary conditions, and Penn is disqualified because his record is NOT exemplary.
Having an exemplary record is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition for receiving an award. An officer must have one in order to be eligible, but officers must also meet a number of other criteria (going beyond the call of duty and saving a life) – so an exemplary record alone is not sufficient.
Hope that helps!