LSAT-27-2-22

22. It is absurd idea that whatever artistic endeavor the government refuses to support it does not allow, as one can see by rephrasing the statement to read: No one is allowed to create art without a government subsidy.
The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the argument above?
(A) The claim that any driver who is not arrested does not break the law is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: Every driver who breaks the law gets arrested.
(B) The claim that any driver who is not arrested does mot break the law is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: Every driver who gets arrested has broken the law.
(C) The notion that every scientist who is supported by a government grant will be successful is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: No scientist who is successful is so without a government grant.
(D) The notion that every scientist who is supported by a government grant will be successful is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: No scientist lacking governmental support will be successful.
(E) The notion that every scientist who has been supported by a government grant will be successful is absurd, as one can see by rewording it: No scientist is allowed to do research without a government grant.

不太明白本题, 请指点.

A is the correct answer.

The pattern of reasoning in the original passage is to rephrase an idea into a logically equivalent form that put the absurdity of the idea in an easy to grasp fashion.  So, you need to look at the answer choices to see:

- Is the rephrased idea logically equivalent to the original idea?

- Is the absurdity of the idea more obvious after rephrasing?

Applying the two tests to the answer choices and you will see that A is the correct answer.

" whatever artistic endeavor the government refuses to support it does not allow,"==>

every artistic endeavor supported by GF is allowed. ===> support is the sufficient condition for allow.  if support, then , allow. or if no allow , then no support.   

if A, then B,   and no B , then no A.

"No one is allowed to create art without a government subsidy".==>  support becomes a necessary condition for allow.

no support no allow. no A, then no B.

key D

every scientist who is supported by a government grant will be successful==>support is sufficient condition to success.

if support, then success. if A, then B, and if no B, then no A.

No scientist lacking governmental support will be successful.==>support becomes a neccesary condition for success.

no support no success, no A, then no B.

whether or how the idea is absurd is irrelvent in reasoning the pattern since our concern should focus on the similarity rather than the correctness of reasoning.

答案是A, 可是读不懂whatever artistic endeavor the government refuses to support it does not allow

sorry, I made a mistake.

It is same to,  government will not support those artistic endeavor that it does not allow.

No GF support for forbidden art is not same to GF support for allowed art.

Then, not allowed, no support ===> all allowed art get support.

A

Not break law, no arrest ===> all those who break law get arrested.

My mind is a lit twisted in this question.

Thanks Hedonism, I got the basic idea. But I still don't understand why the answer is A. I agree with you on "No GF support for forbidden art is not same to GF support for allowed art. ". If this is the case, E is more like the answer as, in E, "sucessful" and "to do research" are two different matters.

Please help.

原文：政府没补贴----->不允许。所以，政府不支持------>不允许。（这是个有效推理）

A。Break----->arrested。所以，NOT arrested----->NOT break。（逆否命题，有效推理）

E。没有政府批准----->不允许做研究。所以，政府用批准的方式支持----->会成功。（偷换概念，无效推理）