Get UP TO $2,000 of Free Tutoring with a
. Ends in
Invite a Friend
Free LSAT Practice
LSAT Practice Test
LSAT Practice Test Videos
eBook: The Road to 180
Law School Top 100
LSAT Test Proctor
LSAT Logic Games
Apple App Store
Digital LSAT Simulator
Fee Waiver Scholarship
LSAT Test Dates
LSAT Message Board
December 2007 LSAT
Principle: Meetings should be kept short, addressing only those issues relevant to a majority of those attending. A ...
on January 14, 2019
Why is (c) correct and (e) wrong?
on January 15, 2019
Great question. This is a strengthen with a sufficient premise
question. We're looking for an answer choice that would help validate
the application of the rules we've been given.
We know that
1) Meeting addresses - - >issues relevant to a majority of those attending
2) no issues addressed at meeting relevant to a person - ->person
should not be required to go to the meeting
1) Issue at Meeting - >Rel. Majority
2) /Relevant to person - >/Req. to Attend
Application: Terry should not be required to go to the meeting (/Req. to Attend)
We know that an answer that would trigger no issues addressed at the
meeting being relevant to Terry would help us to get to the
application of the rules. We need to trigger /Relevant to person
Answer A is incorrect because it discusses a presentation, and this is
not mentioned anywhere in the stimulus. We can get rid of this choice.
Answer B is incorrect because it also discusses Terry making a
presentation. This has no bearing on the argument and doesn't help us
justify the conclusion.
Answer C says no issue relevant to Terry could be relevant to a
majority of those attending the meeting. We know from our first
premise that if an issue isn't relevant to a majority of people at a
meeting, then the issue is not addressed at the meeting. If none of
the issues that are relevant to Terry are addressed at the meeting,
then that means that if an issue is discussed at the meeting, then it
won't be relevant to Terry. Therefore, the sufficient condition for
our second premise is true, which allows us to conclude that Terry
should not be required to attend the meeting. This is our correct
Answer D is incorrect because if it's true, then there could still be
issues that are relevant to Terry, so it does not help us justify the
application of the principle in the stimulus.
Answer E is incorrect because even if a majority of issues at the
meeting aren't relevant to Terry, there could still be issues that are
relevant to Terry. And if there are issues relevant to Terry, then we
can't justify that Terry should not be required to attend the meeting.
Therefore, this answer is out.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any questions!
Posting to the forum is only allowed for members with active accounts.