June 2010 LSAT Section 5 Question 24

Which one of the following is given by the passage as a reason for the difficulty a lawyer would have in determining ...

Amanda_r01 on April 2, 2020

Question 2

In the second example, the diagram that I understand from the info is that. C-) Lutz's records contain scandalous items: Sc and McConnell does not run against him: -MR = Sc -> -MR D-) Lutz's records contain nothing that would not increase McConnell's chances of winning: -Sc and she runs against him: MR = -Sc -> MR -I don't get where the LFC comes into play nor how we negate the Sc in answer choice C. -What am I missing in answer D and overall in those two choices ???

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

Already have an account? log in

Brett-Lindsay on July 26, 2020

Until I watched the explanation, I totally missed that one too. I hadn't even considered that there were two parallel scenarios: one in which Lutz has a large campaign fund and one in which he doesn't.

If he doesn't have a large campaign fund, then we know that there is the possibility that McConnell will run:

not LCF --> Sc --> MR

but when he does have a large campaing fund (LCF --> FA & not MR), all we know is that McConnell does not run. We don't know whether Lutz has any scandalous items or not, though, because that's not mentioned in that scenario.

Therefore, it's possible that Lutz has a large campaign fund and he has scandalous items. In that case, McConnell still will not run against him. If that is true, then C is possible.