T57 (again) Sec 2 #25

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.

Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:56 am

T57 (again) Sec 2 #25

Postby skippy1 » Fri Oct 01, 2010 5:44 pm

Ugh, this exam was really tough for me.

Rule: All contributions over $100 made by nonresidents who are not former residents of Weston should be registered with city. Brimley's campaign clearly complied with this law because it only accepted contributions from residents and former residents of weston.

C) No contributions needed to be registered with city.

E) Campaign did not register any contributions with city.

I kinda understand that C is correct but I don't know 100% why E is incorrect. I chose E but I was going back and forth between C and E. None of campaign contributions met the criteria for the rule (nonresidents who are NOT former residents) and if the rule was not violated as it says in the arg - wouldn't E be correct - none of the contributions would be registered with the city?

Last edited by skippy1 on Fri Oct 01, 2010 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.


Posts: 952
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: T57 (again) Sec 2 #25

Postby BlueDiamond » Fri Oct 01, 2010 5:49 pm

My reasoning for canceling out E would be the language... "campaign did not" .. we don't know that by looking at it.. Campaign didn't need to.. but did it? or didn't it? we have no idea

hope that helps.. or at least for my sake is even correct


Posts: 113
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:20 pm

Re: T57 (again) Sec 2 #25

Postby stargazin » Fri Oct 01, 2010 9:11 pm

I agree with BlueDiamond's assessment. Another possible idea is that just because the campaign does not NEED to register any contributions per the rule doesn't mean that it DIDN'T. (Even if it didn't need to register the contributions, it could have anyway).

Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum�

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests