Hey All,

For your interest, I just gave an explanation of this question type in another post: cr-shy-adolescents-90490.html.

More or less, this is an assumption question that fits into the category "Logic Gap", in which a syllogism is missing one of its pieces (see the link above if you don't understand what that means).

When you see this pattern appear, really make an effort to predict the answer (the correct answer will always match your prediction; there isn't a lot of room to maneuver in logic gap questions).

Conclusion: People who trust others are confident
Premise: People who believe others trust them are confident
Assumption: People who believe others trust them also trust others

We can see this assumption coming as clearly as if the argument looked like this:

Conclusion: Whatever is behind that door is awesome.
Premise: Talking monkeys are awesome.

Obviously, the assumption would be: there are talking monkeys behind that door.

Hope that helps!

-t

Tricky one, but see phrases as a whole.
We have:
evidence
People who do not believe that others distrust them = confident in their own abilities
A=B

conclusion
people who tend to trust others = confident in their won abilities
C=B

Hence the needed assumtion is A=C:
People who do not believe that others distrust them = people who tend to trust others

So, the answer is C

anc C.

look at the final statement "since this is precisely how people who are confident in their own abilities regard such tasks." u hv to find relation bet'n "people who are confident in their own abilities" and "think of a difficult task as a challenge rather than a threat" for the arg to follow logically. so the last part of the prev 2 statements are connected,so u hv to connect the first part of the two prev statements : "People who do not believe that others distrust them " and "people who tend to trust others ". this is done only in option C , in reverse order.

its very simple !!!

Got it right in 3:38 Min.Thanks for a good question.
i Solved it in this way............
As the question says
People(do not believe that others distrust them)----> confident in their own abilities (1)
People(who tend to trust others)------> take difficult task as a challenge (2)
Conclusion=== > Confident people ---> take difficult task as challenge

Conclusion is the right part of (1) and (2)

So left part of (1) and (2) should be equal ,and that is what (c) is telling.

Consider KUDOS if it helped u in some way.

I did it in just a min and 1o sec.
It helps to scribble when things gets clouded in CR.

Here an example:


(A) People who believe that others distrust them tend to trust others.
Ok..look at figure.. some [color=#BF0040]don't trust I...but I trust some.. can't produce in diagram..NO!.[/color]

(B) Confidence in one’s own abilities gives one confidence in the trustworthiness of others.
This is reverse of upper diagram. But, the flow is one-sided.can't conclude...NO!.

(C) People who tend to trust others do not believe that others distrust them.
Diagram says.."I trust others and others trust me". Thats wat given here(People who trust others, believe others trust them) and thats my answer. I wont go any further!

(D) People who are not threatened by difficult tasks tend to find such tasks challenging.
(E) People tend to distrust those who they believe lack self-confidence.

Hope, it helps!

Here is how I solved this, drew a map:

Premise 1: NOT Believe others DISTRUST you = CONFIDENT
Premise 2: CONFIDENT ---> task = challenge

Conclusion: TRUST others ---> task=challenge.

So we need to equate premises and the conclusion. task=challenge means you are confident hence conclusion becomes: TRUST others = CONFIDENT = NOT Believe others DISTRUST you.. Answer C bridges the gap.

It is always better to simplify what the argument is trying to say.

1st sentence - Don't believe that others distrust them --> Confident in their own abilities
2nd sentence - trust others --> view difficult tasks as a challenge (note that this is the main conclusion of the argument. Also, note the conclusion indicator 'so').
3rd sentence - confident in their abilities --> view difficult tasks as a challenge (note that this is a premise. note the premise indicator 'since').

We can combine the 1st sentence and the 3rd sentence to yield the premise -

Don't believe that others distrust them --> confident in their abilities --> view difficult tasks as a challenge.

The conclusion is -

tend to trust others --> view difficult tasks as a challenge.

Assumption is something that ties the premise to the conclusion. We have to find the link between the LHS ("trust others") to RHS ("view difficult tasks as a challenge").

One way to do this is to tie "trust others" to " don't believe that others distrust them" so that the conclusion naturally follows from the link.
Which answer option states this? Option C.

A - we are concerned with people who don't believe that others distrust them not the other way round.
B - states 'confidence in their own abilities --> confidence in trustworthiness of others' - this links the 2nd statement in the premise to the first statement in the conclusion. Incorrect. We need something that links the LHS to RHS in the conclusion statement.
C - correct answer.
D - the conclusion is this - "people who trust others view difficult tasks as a challenge rather than a threat" - this does not mean that all people who are not threatened by difficult tasks view them as challenge. Also, a restatement of the conclusion is not an assumption.
E - we are concerned with people who don't believe that others distrust them. We are not concerned with all people.
_________________

My analysis is below.
Conc: P who trust others: Dif task = challenge
Basis of Conc (BofC): P who are confident in their own abilities: Dif task = challenge
P1: P who believe that O trust P : Confident in their own abilities

As showed above. the different colors highlights the linkages between the different parts of the argument. So, In order for the conclusion to be true, we need to establish the linkage (assumption) between P1 and the Conclusion.
A valid assumption would be that P who trust others believe that others trust them. (Option C is correct)
If we negate it: "P who trust others don't believe that others trust them" breaks the conclusion.

A) Incorrect. We are not concern about people who believe that others distrust them (different group of people is mention in the argument: people who do not believe that others distrust them = people who believe that other trust them)

B) Incorrect. This links P1 with the BofC. We need a linkage with the Conclusion.

D) OFS. Argument is not concerned with this group of people threatened by a task. Argument just talks about that the target group of people consider difficult tasks as a challenge rather than a threat.

E) OFS. this option makes a general assumption about all people.

People who think others trust them are confident. People who are confident and hence deal with difficult tasks as a challenge rather than threat therefore trust others. This implies author thinks people who think others trust them trust other people also.
A. This goes opposite to the required assumption.
B. Here Trust —-> confidence, not the other way round. Cause and effect have been reversed in the choice.
C. This says exactly what we hypothesised.
D. People who are confident tend to think of difficult tasks as challenges. The choice is only a part of the argument.
E. Nothing in the passage says anything about what kind if people are distrusted.

Posted from my mobile device

Hello, there is something I want to learn about the question and I am writing to get information about the general LSAT style on the occasion of this question.

I keep thinking about the role of the word "so" in the discussion. For example, how would that affect the argument if it wasn't "so", would it make the question more difficult than it is? Because that's what made the "C" option appealing to me. Please keep me informed about this issue.

Thank you!

AndrewN GMATNinja

Posted from my mobile device

Hello, Cincos5. The answer to your question is that so is acting as a conjunction. (It happens to represent the s in the acronym FANBOYS that is often taught to American students to help them remember common conjunctions.) Without the word, the sentence would need to be written somewhat differently to remain grammatical. For instance, a period or semicolon could be placed where you currently see a comma after abilities. Even written this way, the straight-arrow logic would still point to (C). There are two overlapping pieces of information that allow the same conclusion to be drawn, as explained by others above.

Perhaps that helps with your query. Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew
_________________