October 1991 LSAT Section 2 Question 15
Ashley on July 5, 2018Is 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 sheâ€™s not playing and vice versa, then if sheâ€™s playing in London, there isnâ€™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 theyâ€™re doing minor injuries, there isnâ€™t a big injury. The first sentence provides background for why it is she doesnâ€™t do both, but isnâ€™t strictly necessary for understanding the argument.