A well–known sports figure found that combining publicity tours with playing tours led to problems, so she stopped co...

Ashley-Tien on July 5, 2018


Could someone break the stimulus down for me?

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

Already have an account? log in

Ashley-Tien on July 5, 2018

Is the first sentence necessary for understanding the stimulus? I thought the argument was saying "not both," as in if the sports figure had a bookstore appearance, then he had no competition, and if he had a competition, then no bookstore appearance. The answer choices all looked logically different from the stimulus.

Anita on July 5, 2018

@Ashley-Tien The prompt is saying that if the rule is that she can only do publicity when she’s not playing and vice versa, then if she’s playing in London, there isn’t a publicity event. Answer B parallels this by saying if the rule is doctors only do minor injuries when there are no big injuries, then if they’re doing minor injuries, there isn’t a big injury. The first sentence provides background for why it is she doesn’t do both, but isn’t strictly necessary for understanding the argument.

Does that help?