Q12 - One should apologize only to a person

[marcus.v.p.]

Hi all,

What is the best way of attach for this question? Is it simply just writing out the conditions and then going through the answers? Or is there a better way around this?

[GeneW]

Why is A incorrect? Can someone please explain why E is correct. Thank you in advance.

[Djjustin818]

Hi, I'd also like a breakdown for this question please. Thank you!

[csunnerberg13]

In the absence of LSAT geeks here, I'll take a stab at trying to explain the answer and hopefully someone comes along to perfect it...

This is an inference question that needs diagramming if you're to avoid getting lost in the multiple conditional statements.

Key:
OA = one should apologize
PW = a person one has wronged
AS = apologize sincerely
OAW = one has acted wrongfully
IR = intend to repeat
AAS = accept apology sincerely
HG = hold grudge

1. One should apologize only to a person one has wronged and only for having wronged that person.
OA --> PW
(Contrapositive: -PW --> -OA)

2. To apologize sincerely is to acknowledge that one has acted wrongfully.
AS --> OAW
(Contrapositive -OAW --> -AS)

3. One cannot apologize sincerely unless one intends not to repeat the wrongful act.
AS --> -IR
(Contrapositive: IR --> -AS)

4. To accept an apology sincerely is to acknowledge a wrong and to not hold a grudge.
AAS --> OAW and -HG
(Contrapositive: HG or -OAW --> -AAS)

I looked for any possible connections before I went to the answer choices, expecting that the answer choices would be a bunch of possible conditionals and the correct answer choice would reflect something that I had already diagrammed. Unfortunately, I didn't see too many connections here. 2 and 3 are both telling us something necessary to have a sincere apology. Otherwise there didn't seem to be too many connections. I moved to the choices.

(A) I was so tempted by A the first time around and I even picked it on my practice test, but then I was angry with myself to see this was just a terminology issue. All we know about is INTENDING to repeat a wrongful act. A tells us that the person repeated the wrongful act but nothing about intentions. Eliminate

(B) tells us AAS --> AS (or in contrapositive form, -AS --> -AAS). This is not a connection we can make with what we've been told. Eliminate

(C) starts off with "if one commits a wrongful act" - which is something we know nothing about. Eliminate

(D) tells us AS --> AAS (-AAS --> -AS). Once again, we don't have a way to connect AS and AAS directly so this can't be it. Eliminate.

(E) says AS --> AOW and AAS --> AOW, which we know to be true. Both sincerely accepting and sincerely offering an apology requite an acknowledgement of the wrong, as we had already diagrammed - E is correct.

I hope this helps a little bit - if anyone differs with me on something I'd love some feedback.

[GeneW]

Thank you.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Brilliant breakdown csunnerberg13! Your logic is spot on, and your eliminations are perfectly targeted.

I would like to address marcus.v.p.'s original question of the best way to attack this kind of question.

This question is a classic version of the "inference question jammed full of conditionals." There are too many conditionals to easily keep track of in your head, and they don't obviously link together in ways that stick.

There are a number of things that make this question type challenging:

1) wasted time on trying to decide whether to diagram
2) wasted time diagramming inefficiently
3) wasted time looking for connections between statements that either cannot be made, or don't end up being tested
4) the distraction caused by all of the above that leads to the failure to notice clear language changes between the conditionals and a proposed answer choice

I strongly recommend that, as soon as you recognize you are looking at an inference question full of conditionals, you immediately start jotting down the shorthand for those conditionals to the side of the stimulus. Do not spend much time trying to connect statements - the reality is that you don't know what connections might be tested.

The key is getting through the stimulus, and the shorthand diagramming, quickly and efficiently. If you get too caught up in the statements, the diagramming, or potential connections, you're spinning out on unproductive activity. If you move efficiently, and recognize that while you have a lot of conditionals, none of them are very complex, then you'll be in a much better position to attack the answer choices!

At that point, you're ready to dive into the answer choices with your 'can we prove that' radar set on high! csunnerberg13 is perfectly on point when she notes that (A) and (C) can be eliminated instantly because we don't have any triggers that contain committing (or repeating) wrong acts. (B) and (D) can be eliminated because they attempt to connect sincere offering and sincere accepting - since both of those elements appear only in triggers, there's no way to connect them directly!

These eliminations are far easier to see when you have a quick and clean shorthand set of the conditionals in the stimulus, and far easier to assess when you've moved through those conditionals efficiently!

Thanks again, csunnerberg13 for your excellent analysis!

[dortizsj]

How would answer B be diagrammed?
One cannot sincerely accept an apology that was not sincerely accepted.
I'm not understanding how the person above diagrammed,

[snoopy]

How would answer B be diagrammed?
One cannot sincerely accept an apology that was not sincerely accepted.
I'm not understanding how the person above diagrammed,

So, you have two conditional relationships that B touches on from the stimulus: 1) accepting apologies sincerely, and 2) apologizing sincerely

Sentence 2 in the stim is diagrammed:
Premise: apologize sincerely -> acknowledge a wrong
Contrap: ~acknowledge one acted wrong -> ~apologize sincerely

Sentence 4 in the stim:
Premise: accept sincerely -> acknowledge a wrong
Contra: ~acknowledge a wrong -> ~accept sincerely

B can be rephrased to "One cannot sincerely accept an apology unless it was sincerely offered."
accept sincerely -> apologize sincerely

[BarryM800]

I thought the first part of the correct answer (E) is ambiguous: "An apology cannot be both sincerely offered and sincerely accepted."

(1) An apology cannot be both sincerely offered and sincerely accepted at the same time, though either one can stand by itself: apologize sincerely → NOT accept sincerely; CP: accept sincerely → NOT apologize sincerely.

(2) Neither apologize sincerely nor accept sincerely: NOT apologize sincerely + NOT accept sincerely.

Apparently, (E) is taking on the second interpretation, but is the first interpretation correct? If it's valid, then how should we know which interpretation to use? Thanks!

[Misti Duvall]

I thought the first part of the correct answer (E) is ambiguous: "An apology cannot be both sincerely offered and sincerely accepted."

(1) An apology cannot be both sincerely offered and sincerely accepted at the same time, though either one can stand by itself: apologize sincerely → NOT accept sincerely; CP: accept sincerely → NOT apologize sincerely.

(2) Neither apologize sincerely nor accept sincerely: NOT apologize sincerely + NOT accept sincerely.

Apparently, (E) is taking on the second interpretation, but is the first interpretation correct? If it's valid, then how should we know which interpretation to use? Thanks!

I wouldn't diagram the first part of (E) on its own, since it's part of a larger conditional statement (note the conditional key word "unless"). If you diagram the entire statement, it's:

- each person acknowledge wrong --> - sincerely offered or - sincerely accepted

Hope this helps!