The company president says that significant procedural changes were made before either she or Yeung was told about th...

on September 5 at 06:33PM

Help

This question was very confusing for me. Can someone please explain? Thanks!

1 Reply

Irina on September 5 at 09:26PM

@Minerva,

Let's look at the question.

The company president says that significant procedural changes were made before either she or Yeung was told about them. But, the contract requires that either the company president or any lawyer in the company's legal department be told about proposed procedural changes. Thus, unless what Grimes or the company president said it is incorrect, the contract was violated.

The argument tells us that either the president or one of the company lawyers must be informed of the changes to ensure the contract remains valid. The president says she was not informed, and also Yeung was not informed. We do not know what's Yeung's role in the company, but even if he is one of the lawyers that is irrelevant. The contract says a notice to any lawyer in the legal department is sufficient, hence the only way the contract is invalid is if NO lawyer in the company's legal department was made aware of the changes (C).

Let's look at the other answer choices:

(A) Yeung is a lawyer in the legal department.

Incorrect. His position is irrelevant to the argument unless their legal department is only one person and it is Yeung, that's a far-fetched inference, hence (A) is out.

(B) Neither Grimes nor Yeung was told about the changes.

Incorrect. Again, Yeung and Grimes are irrelevant unless they are the only lawyers in the company's legal department, and we have no evidence to support this inference.

(D) If the company's president was told about the procedural changes before they were made, then the contract was not violated.

Incorrect. This is a true statement, but how does it support our conclusion? The conclusion is that the contract was violated.

(E) If no lawyer in the company's legal department was told about the procedural changes before they were made, then the contract was violated.

Incorrect. This is simply a repetition of one of the explicit premises, the correct answer choice needs to fill the gap between this premise and the conclusion that the contract was violated.

Does this make sense?

Let me know if you have any further questions.