June 2007 LSAT - Section 2 - Question 6

An undergraduate degree is necessary for appointment to the executive board. Further, no one with a felony conviction...

anyarc January 9 at 11:47PM

Can you please elaborate further on how A "cannot help us and does not even strengthen the argument"?

I understand after watching the video why B is correct, but I would appreciate a more of explanation on the first option. Thanks!

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

Already have an account? log in

Nate-Stein January 15 at 11:39AM

@Anyarc, thank you for your question,

The LSAT tests whether the facts match up perfectly with the conclusion. Any mismatch is a flaw. They are constantly trying to introduce tiny mismatches to make the test harder and trickier. It is up to you to decide if these are real mismatches or not, or just synonyms for the same thing. Here, the facts given tell us what is required for APPOINTMENT to the EXECUTIVE BOARD. The conclusion is that Murry cannot be ACCEPTED for the position of EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR. But there is some sort of mismatch there. Are the requirements for appointment to the board, the same as the requirements for accepting a position in administration?

If yes, that is unstated. Anything unstated is an assumption. That is our anticipation and perfectly matches the correct answer choice. No other answer choice references the mismatch, the only thing that matters on the LSAT.

Hope that helps and happy studying,
Nate, LSATMax Instructor