Which one of the following statements most accurately characterizes a difference between the two passages?

markhall123 on February 13, 2018


What is the answer to the passage question ?

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Mehran on February 14, 2018

@markhall123 I am assuming you referring to the example Logical Reasoning question that I use to show the different parts of a Logical Reasoning questions, i.e. the stimulus, the question stem and the answer choices.

If so, the correct answer is (B).

This question is Question 6 in the first Logical Reasoning section of the June 2007 LSAT (i.e. the free LSAT).

You can watch a detailed video explanation of this question by tapping the play button in the top right hand corner of the screen when viewing this question inside of the June 2007 LSAT.

Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

FergusonKid1020 on August 28, 2019

I was just wondering how the answer was B and not D. I am very curious.

Victoria on August 28, 2019

Hi thanks for your post!

Let's start by going through the stimulus.

"An undergraduate degree is necessary for appointment to the executive board."

AEB - > UD

No UD - > Not AEB

"No one with a felony conviction can be appointed to the board."

FC - > Not AEB

AEB - > No FC

The passage uses this information to conclude that Murray cannot be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator even though he has an undergraduate degree because he has a felony conviction.

We know from the stimulus that if you have a felony conviction, you cannot be appointed to the executive board. The stimulus says nothing about the Executive Administrator position. Therefore, we can only draw this conclusion if we assume that you must be eligible for appointment to the executive board to be accepted as the Executive Administrator. We can see that this is restated by answer choice B, making it the correct answer.

D is incorrect because it does not address the gap in the argument. We know that if Murray did not have a felony conviction, he would be eligible for appointment to the executive board. However, the stimulus does not discuss the position of Executive Administrator so we cannot conclude that Murray would be accepted for this position if he did not have a felony conviction.

Hope this is helpful! Please let us know if you have any further questions.