Get up to 15 hours of free tutoring worth $3000 with an
Invite a Friend
Free LSAT Practice
LSAT Practice Test
LSAT Practice Test Videos
eBook: The Road to 180
Law School Top 100
LSAT Test Proctor
LSAT Logic Games
Apple App Store
Digital LSAT Simulator
Fee Waiver Scholarship
LSAT Test Dates
LSAT Message Board
December 1995 LSAT
No projects that involve historical restorations were granted building permits this month. Since some of the current ...
on November 4, 2015
Could you please explain this?
on November 9, 2015
Let's diagram the stimulus first.
No projects that involve historical restorations (HR) were granted building permits (GP) this month.
HR ==> not GP
Some of the current projects of the firm S&S are historical restorations.
Therefore, at least some of S&S's projects were not granted building permits this month.
This is a valid conclusion that can be drawn by combining the first two premises in a transitive formation, as follows:
S&S-some-HR ==> not GP
Therefore: S&S-some-not GP
Answer choice (D) is identical, although the order of the premises is different. I am going to rearrange them so you can see the logical structure is identical:
None of the films released this season (RTS) were enthusiastically reviewed (ER).
RTS ==> not ER.
Several films directed by Hannah Barker (HBF) were released this season.
"Several" is diagrammed as "some."
Now, combine these two premises in a transitive formation, as follows:
HBF-some-RTS ==> not ER
Therefore: HBF-some-not ER.
That is identical to the stimulus.
Hope this helps!
Posting to the forum is only allowed for members with active accounts.
REFER A FRIEND