Wow, do I love my students. Yesterday, I had the Geto Boys teach an LSAT lesson. The lesson ended with a tongue-in-cheek "homework assignment" that I figured nobody would actually respond to. But PJ Lin, one of my online students, submitted a response. PJ received his class binder in Atlanta, GA and is now "traveling." Since PJ views his LSAT lessons from somewhere in the world, let's just say that he's from "parts unknown"... like the Ultimate Warrior.
I'm sure PJ's response is correct, because he's already an LSAT All-Star at the very least, and might very well be on his way to an Intercontinental Championship. (The Ultimate Warrior first got the Belt by defeating the Honky Tonk Man in 27 seconds, according to Wikipedia.) In this post, I'll comment on PJ's response. Call me "Mean Gene."
Here was the prompt:
And real gangsta-ass niggas don't run for shit 'cause real gangsta-ass niggas can't run fast
What's the evidence? What's the conclusion? What's the missing piece? How would you answer a Sufficient Assumption question based on this argument? A Necessary Assumption question? A Weaken question?
According to PJ,
conclusion is gangsta don't run for shit
premise is gangsta cannot run fast
Correct! PJ then provides the missing piece:
the missing piece is p2
p1 if you are a real gangsta you cannot run fast (G--> ~RF)
p2 not running fast makes you not run for shit (~RF--> ~RFS)
C: if you are a real gangsta you don't run for shit (G--> ~RFS)
Correct again! Then PJ proceeds through the different types of questions that the testmakers might ask based on this argument. If the testmakers had asked "Which one of the following, if assumed, would allow the conclusion to be properly drawn"...
sufficient assumption answer is:
if you do not run fast then you do not run for shit
Yep. If the above statement is true, then the Geto Boys argument wins. That's the definition of "Sufficient Assumption."
So, what if the testmakers had asked "Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?"
there is at least one person who cannot run fast that does not run for shit
Yep. If the above statement is false, the Geto Boys' argument would lose. That's the definition of "Necessary Assumption."
So, what if the testmakers had asked "Which of the following, if true, would most undermine the conclusion of the argument?"
everyone who cannot run fast always runs for shit.
Yep, if that's true then the Geto Boys' argument definitely loses.
What's everybody think? Does PJ immediately win the Intercontinental Championship Belt? I think he deserves it.