Some planning committee members—those representing the construction industry—have significant financial interests in ...

Gisell-Landrian May 23, 2019

Persons v. Planning Committee Members

I eliminated answer choice (E) because it states "persons" as opposed to planning committee members. I thought I was supposed to avoid making assumptions outside of the information provided in the stimulus. I understand why (E) is correct, any tips to avoid making the same mistake? Why was I wrong in eliminating (E)?

Replies

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

Already have an account? log in

Ravi May 23, 2019

@Gisell-Landrian,

Happy to help.

(E) says, "Some persons with significant financial interests in the
planning committee's decisions do not live in the suburbs."

This is the inference that we get from combining the first two
statements of the stimulus, which are

1) PCM - some - SFI
2) PCM - >Don't LIS

Combining these, we get that some people with significant financial
interests in the planning committee's decisions don't live in the
suburbs

SFI - some - Don't LIS

You're rightâ€”on the LSAT, we're not supposed to make assumptions
outside of the information provided in the stimulus. However, we're
not doing that with this question. It's totally reasonable for us to
assume that everyone who is on the planning committee is a person. In
doing so, we know that there are some people who have a significant
financial interest in the committee's decisions. We also know that
some of these people don't live in the suburbs.

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!

Gisell-Landrian May 23, 2019

Yes it does make sense. I may have just been overthinking it, thank you for clarifying!