June 2016 LSAT Section 3 Question 20

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

AndrewArabie on February 21, 2023

Answer Choice criticism

I read the explanation as to why A is wrong and I totally get it and do not dispute it. I selected it because I thought "well then it must be true that Yeung is a lawyer for the company" then A was served to me on a silver platter. But I don't think I'll ever see an answer like A and criticize it well enough to say "well maybe there are more lawyers that work for the company." If I would've read C I would've selected it, but I moved on after choosing A because I don't have the time to analyze every answer choice and still finish in 35 minutes. Are there any tips for reading and criticizing these tricky answer choices so I don't keep getting caught by them? At this point it just seems impossible for me to not get sucked into one of these. By "answer choice like A" its hard for me to describe the common denominator amongst it and the others that trick me. It's the kind with the explanations that make you throw your hands up and say "Oh well obviously!" The best way I can explain it is that the explanations are pedantic but not trivial.

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

Already have an account? log in

Emil-Kunkin on March 1, 2023

I think it starts with the passage itself. There are a couple of flaws here, and it gets easier to see that A doesn't fix all of them if you attack the argument up front.

The first flaw, which I think you noticed, is that we actually have no clue who Yeung is. Is she a lawyer, a paralegal, the general counsel, a secretary, or the CFO? A helps to fix this.

However, there is another major flaw. The rule is that ANY lawyer needed to be consulted, which means that they could've told bob the lawyer and not yeung. Seeing this flaw makes it so much easier to dismiss A, since A doesn't fix this flaw.