QUESTION TEXT: Principle: If one does not criticize a form of…
QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Application
PRINCIPLE: The principle below applies if you have “a flaw in oneself” (i.e. if you have that flaw)
Criticize flaw in self AND vow to stop ➞ Criticize in others
APPLICATION: Shimada should not criticize McFeney for tardiness. Unless Shimada vows to stop being tardy.
ANALYSIS: The principle here is slightly tricky. You may have written it as an “or”. But actually, it means “and”. This is a subtle feature of English. When I say “If you don’t do this or that” I mean “If you don’t do both”.
If you mean you don’t do one or you don’t do the other, you have to write “If you don’t do this or you don’t do that.” It’s the difference between “or that” and “or you don’t do that”.
Frankly, that may not have cleared things up, because there’s nothing to explain about it. It’s just an English grammar form you need to memorize. It’s no more logical than why the word red means red and not cheesecake.
So, to the actual application. There are actually three elements to the situation, though one isn’t worth drawing. If:
- Shimada is late, and
- Shimada is not criticizing himself for being late, and
- Shimada doesn’t vow to stop, then….
….Shimada shouldn’t criticize lateness in others. We’re trying to conclude “Shimada shouldn’t criticize someone else, unless they vow to change”. So “vow to change” needs to be the decisive factor. It can only be the decisive factor if the other factors are already true. So the right answer should say that Shimada is tardy, and isn’t criticizing himself.
___________
- CORRECT. See the analysis above. This answers meets the first two bulleted conditions. Now “vowing to stop” is the only remaining condition: if they don’t vow to stop, then they can’t criticize.
- This weakens the application. The principle talks about “a form of behavior in oneself”. So Shimada needs to actually be tardy before the principle applies to him.
- The question is about whether Shimada should criticize. McFeney’s tendency to criticize is irrelevant.
- This means the principle doesn’t apply. The principle said “If one does not criticize….in oneself”. This answer says that Shimada does criticize his own tardiness.
- Same as B. The principle only applies when discussing “a form of behavior in oneself”. If Shimada isn’t tardy, then the principle doesn’t apply.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Leon says
This explanation is no doubt outstanding!
Charlie says
But the LSAT presents us with “or” in the sufficient condition all the time, and we produce the following diagram every time:
If (A or B) –> C, which breaks into A–>C and B–>C. This is because, logically, the sufficient “or” means that A and B are *independently* sufficient to entail the conclusion. I can’t see any indication that this rule doesn’t apply here.
FounderGraeme says
It’s because of how english works. The word “don’t” changes how the sentence works.
There’s actually no way to “explain” why the sentence means what it does. You’d need to read about the grammar of that phrase. I don’t have the grammar background to say *why* that sentence means “and”. It just does.
Actually, this might convince you. What does “criticize a form of behavior or vow to stop it” mean? It means “C or V”. What does it mean to “not” do that? It means negating it. And when we negate or, it turns to and: “~C and ~V”.
The LSAT has been using more obscure grammar forms and vocabulary words to trip up filter for people with a very high literacy level. Their new way of distinguishing between mid 160s and 170s.
Charlie says
I’m not sure how that proof works. It seems like you’re trying to show that or=and in this context by showing the negation. so (C or V) = (C and V) because the negation of (C or V) is (~C and ~V). Isn’t this the same as saying X = ~X?
FounderGraeme says
When you negate or, it becomes and. And negating and becomes or. That’s just the regular rules of negations. “Don’t”, negates the rest of the sentence.
You’re probably most familiar with and/or negations in contrapositives, but that’s actually the general rule for making anything not true if it has and/or.