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...

Elizabeth25 on May 4 at 11:56PM

why not e

so for me the conclusion started at thus which introduced a new term (the contracted being violated) from what i recalled we are suppose to connect things in the stimulus to the conclusion which to me is what e does.

Replies

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

Already have an account? log in

Emil-Kunkin on May 16 at 03:01PM

I think you need to be way more specific about what the flaw is. Here the author has assumed that no lawyer was told. But the only premise we have to support this is that y was not told. The fact that y was not told certainly doesn't prove that no lawyer was told!

E doesn't even come close to fixing this. It tells us that in the event no lawyer was told then it was violated, but this never tells us that no lawyer was told.

Elizabeth25 on May 17 at 02:02AM

Oh ok Emil, thank you for your pick up on my vagueness in finding the flaw sometimes. I appreciate it and will definitely be more critical of the argument. But I now see how A needed to be a part of the stimulus to be correct

Emil-Kunkin on May 17 at 01:55PM

Great! I know you also asked a question recently about a substitution question, but for some reason I'm not able to see which PT it was about. Do you happen to remember which test it was from?

Elizabeth25 on May 18 at 01:19AM

so it was on the analytics section of group games questions 498-504. The game was seatings for a benefit dinner 7 sponsors.