organizations is to generate profits. The ongoing

revolutions in biotechnology and information

technology promise to generate enormous profits.

Therefore, criminal organizations will undoubtedly

try to become increasingly involved in these areas.

The conclusion of the criminologist’s argument is

properly inferred if which one of the following is

assumed?

(A)

If an organization tries to become increasingly

involved in areas that promise to generate enormous

profits, then the main purpose of that organization is

to generate profits.

(B)

At least some criminal organizations are or will

at some point become aware that the ongoing

revolutions in biotechnology and information

technology promise to generate enormous profits.

(C)

Criminal organizations are already heavily involved

in every activity that promises to generate enormous

profits.

(D)

Any organization whose main purpose is to generate

profits will try to become increasingly involved

in any technological revolution that promises to

generate enormous profits.

(E)

Most criminal organizations are willing to become

involved in legal activities if those activities are

sufficiently profitable.

SPOILER

The correct answer is the first letter of the animal considered to be man's best friend.

This answer is NOT SUFFICIENT to allow the conclusion to be "properly inferred", UNLESS we interpret the conclusion -- "criminal organizations will undoubtedly ..." as meaning "some" or "most" criminal organizations and NOT "all". This is because the first premise tells us only that "most" criminal organizations are into getting profits. So even if you add the correct answer to the argument, the strongest conclusion you could make is that "Most criminal organizations will try to get increasingly involved..."

But here, if the conclusion is supposed to be a claim about "criminal organizations" in the sense of "each criminal organization", then the conclusion is NOT properly inferred by adding the assumption in the correct answer. The correct answer is only sufficient if we interpret "criminal organizations" as meaning "some" or "most". Can someone tell me if I have something wrong here?

"As are B." I would normally interpret that as saying every A is a B. But I grant that, in some contexts, that might mean more generally, "There are As that are B." How the hell are we supposed to distinguish the two meanings? Is there some rule of the English language?

"Dinosaurs are extinct." Does that mean all dinos, or just some/most?

"Football players with 1 year of experience in NFL are used to taking hits." Does that mean all football players with 1 year of experience in the NFL or jsut some/most of them?

"Criminal organizations will try to become increasingly involved in tech revolutions." Does that mean all crim orgs or just some/most? What distinguishes this last example from the first two?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3558689&forum_id=2#32872741)

like, if someone says "Jews are stingy" or "dogs are cute", it's an acceptable overgeneralization that can be understood to mean "most Jews are stingy" or "most dogs are cute". D is still by far the safest answer here though.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3558689&forum_id=2#32872936)

"Anyone who is a jew is stingy"

"Any animal that is a dog is cute"

By beginning with with the all encompassing phrase "Any organization," (D) unequivocally is ascribing a characteristic to the group consisting of "organization[s] whose main purpose is to generate

profits."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3558689&forum_id=2#32872961)

His conclusion makes a mess of the problem.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3558689&forum_id=2#32872983)

The easiest way to approach these questions is to identify the minimum requirements for the statement to be true and to give it no more thought after that. This should become intuitive after you have done enough of these problems

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3558689&forum_id=2#32873005)

"Dinosaurs are extinct." No one would interpret this as saying "at least some dinosaurs are extinct", because this sentence applies to the entire category "dinosaurs" and every dinosaur in tthat category. if someone proved that there was a dinosaur that did not go extinct, people would say it's not true that "dinosaurs are extinct."

what distinguishes this example from the example in the criminal organization problem?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3558689&forum_id=2#32873878)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3558689&forum_id=2#32874411)

would you interpret that as applying to all football players with over 10 years of xp in the NFL, or "some" but not necessarily all?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3558689&forum_id=2#32875152)

Also, LSAT questions will almost never rely on the unstated assumption that "As are Bs" to convey the meaning that all As are Bs. They will explicitly say "all As are Bs" or some variation of the statement.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3558689&forum_id=2#32874412)

My mind is mush, and I arrive at correct answers through process of elimination and a vague recollection of question groupings. I'm convinced that 175-180 scorers have an extremely strong grasp of formal logic.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3558689&forum_id=2#32874323)

This is not a hard one.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3558689&forum_id=2#32875480)