There are several conclusions that we can make from the premises of the stimulus.
The first thing we can conclude from the first and second premises is that most successful entrepreneurs don't have time for leisure. Also, from the second premise and contrapositive of the third premise, we can conclude that anyone who is working 18+ hours a day isn't a happy entrepreneur. Lastly, in combining all of the statements, we can conclude that most successful entrepreneurs aren't happy entrepreneurs.
(A) says, "Anyone who has no time for leisure activities works at least 18 hours a day."
(A) is the converse of the second premise (it's swapping the sufficient and necessary conditions for each other). While (A) is not valid and doesn't have to be true, there is a possibility that it is true. Remember, we're looking for the answer that CANNOT be true (must be false).
(D) says, "Some entrepreneurs who work at least 18 hours a day are happy."
One of the conclusions we arrived at was that anyone who is working 18+ hours per day isn't happy, so there is absolutely no way that (D) could be true. Thus, it's the correct answer choice.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!
KathOctober 8, 2019
Do you mean that because anyone who works more than 18 hours - > not happy, then any successful entrepreneurs who work more then 18 hours - > not happy?
I was confused because first diagram 'successful entrepreneurs who work more than 18 hours" as "SE + more than 18 hours". I made the diagram more complex than It should be. And sometimes the questions just trick us. For example, the native Australian parrots. I first diagramed it as "NA + P".
Could you please explain it to us how can we make this easier so we wouldn't be trapped in the real exam?
@Ravi
mprezzyJanuary 3, 2020
Can someone please explain a little further how it is possible that not LA -> W at least 18 hr / per day is a possibly in a CANNOT be true (MBF) question? I still do not understand how that is a possibility.
