LR Question 13 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Nations that have little interaction with one another…
QUESTION TYPE: Complete the Argument
CONCLUSION:
Sympathy/Justice ➞ Understand others ➞ interaction
Or
interaction ➞ understand others ➞ sympathy/justice
REASONING:
- Sympathy/Justice ➞ Understand others
interaction➞understand others- Contrapositive: Understand others ➞ interaction
ANALYSIS: This is an unusual “complete the argument” question in that it uses formal logic. I can’t recall ever seeing this. More evidence the LSAT’s patterns are shifting.
I wouldn’t say this is a difficult question, though. If you found it hard, then drill formal logic until identifying the premises, drawing them, and combining them is second nature.
Here, you just take the contrapositive of the second statement, and then join it together with the first to form the statement I wrote in the conclusion.
Note that I’ve used words above for clarity, but on my own page I’d draw: S ➞ U ➞ I
Also, I do the contrapositive in my head. Or I might not draw anything at all. But you should draw the question and contrapositive, until you can do them fast, and flawlessly.
___________
- This answer says I ➞ U ➞ S. This incorrectly reverses the premises. It should be S ➞ U ➞ I.
- CORRECT. This takes both statements and combines them. Note that the contrapositive of this answer could also have been correct, though it would have made for a more awkward English sentence.
- The stimulus didn’t even mention problems between nations! This answer is trying to slow you down by making you think about real world information.
- The stimulus didn’t even mention conflict among nations! This answer is trying to slow you down by making you think about real world information.
- This is silly. The author didn’t say that without interaction you can have no knowledge of others’ needs and problems. That’s an extreme statement, and nothing the author said supports it. There’s a big difference between “little” knowledge and “no” knowledge.
More Resources for Complete the Argument Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Complete the Argument questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers complete the argument questions.
Hi, I don’t understand how the formal logic here is according to the order you described. The text says , “Both sympathy and justice depend largely on understanding the needs and problems of others…”
I took this to mean: IF understanding -> Sympathy and justice.
The contrapositive is: No sympathy or no justice —> no understanding.
The first sentence says, “nations that have little interaction … have little knowledge of one another’s needs and problems.” I took this to mean: IF little interaction –> little understanding (i.e. no understanding). The contrapositive then becomes : IF Understanding –> Much interaction
I tried to combine these two lines, to get: Understanding –> sympathy and Justice AND interaction…. Thus, U –> S and U–> I
Please help!
I read this the same way and feel stupid with some of the explanations not referencing what seem to be key points of contention in other questions.