Testluv wrote:DeepakYakkundi wrote:i understood the arguement in the following way
In their native habitat, amaryllis plants go dormant during dry season. going dormant in that season helps them thrive (this is assumption). Hence if amaryllis plants kept as houseplants are to thrive, then they have to go dormant during that season.
hence the assumption is
going dormant causes them to thrive
i.e. dormant -> thrive
the author assumes that only going dormant in that season causes them to thrive. and when they go dormant in that season they will definately thrive.
ans (d) establishes that no dormant -> no thrive.
and hence is the correct answer.
Also the ans choice tell ANY amaryllis plant AND NOT All plants. hence i feel he is not extreme.
ans (e) tells that these plants will benifit something more apart from thriving.
Puttng this in our arguement doesnot make much sense.
In their native habitat, amaryllis plants go dormant during dry season. going dormant in that season benifits them apart from thriving (this is assumption). Hence if amaryllis plants kept as houseplants are to thrive, then they have to go dormant during that season.
Am i going wrong in my reasong?
Hi Deepak,
Actually, choice D does not establish "no dormant --> no thrive."
(D) Any amaryllis plant that fails to thrive is likely to have been dormant for too short a time.
In order for choice D to yield a definite conditional statement, it has to establish one of two things: a) that one condition is sufficient for another or b) that one condition is necessary for another.
"likely to have been" is not the same as "guaranteed to have been". Thus, sufficiency is not established. There is no language suggesting a relationship of necessity, so necessity is not established. There is no conditional statement.
If we replaced "likely to have been" with "guaranteed to have been", then the idea of the plants failing to thrive would be sufficient for establishing the idea that they had been dormant for too short a time, and the conditional statement would have been:
Fail to thrive-->not dormant long enough
And because formal logic is about the presence and absence of ideas, we would rewrite this as:
Not thriving-->Not dormant long enough.
I really wouldn't worry about this question. It is obviously an LSAT question testing loose formal logic and knowledge of formal logic conventions. In the OG 12, page 482, 5th paragraph, the test-maker explicitly states that it does not test knowledge of formal logic conventions.
Well, I have the following observation to make:
E - Speaks about some other benefit other than just surviving. Who knows about that? Where is it assumed that there can be another benefit without doing that? Where does it state that the plant's survival or routine goes fine without the dormancy period. In fact, it is explicitly mentioned that despite keeping in house, it needs to have that dormant phase.
Hence, clearly dormancy phase is required for survival or "thriving" at least. But, who knows/cares about "some other" benefiting some way?
A little far -fetched isn't it, especially, when both premises talk about dormancy periods, why do we have to question the purpose of periods.
Our job is to really compare the two scenarios in the two premises(Keeping in house and natural habitat).
Hence, C.
Well, about D, Premise says - "if amaryllis plants kept as houseplants are to thrive, water should be withheld from them during part of the year so that the plants go dormant"
Meaning, if withheld, then thrives.
If A, then B.
D clearly says - If not thriving, then likely to have too short dormancy. Again, how do we know?
If not B, then not A, is fine => Not thriving, then Not withheld from water(leave the other possibilities that might kill the plant - OOS).
But, how can we say, not withholding water => short or long dormant period????? This further assumes that longer the dormancy, better chance of thriving, again far-fetched, IMO.
Thanks,
Raghu
Hi Testluv, Please correct my reasoning here.
