Prep Test 53, section 3, question 25

User avatar
walterwhite
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:31 pm

Prep Test 53, section 3, question 25

Postby walterwhite » Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:42 pm

Basically my problem with this question is the use of the term "majority." On the LSAT, don't the terms "most" and "majority" include the possibility of "all" (from 51% to 100%)?

Even the powerscore bible says most or majority includes 51%- 100% (on page 7 of the formal logic section). That's why I chose E for this question.

User avatar
walterwhite
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:31 pm

Re: Prep Test 53, section 3, question 25

Postby walterwhite » Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:18 am

by the way I found this test to be very difficult. some tricky LR questions and 2 absolutely diabolical logic games (games 3 and 4). game 4 especially had a very bizarre setup. I was just wondering if this test stood out as particularly difficult for anyone else.

User avatar
PourMeTea
Posts: 6508
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 8:32 am

Post removed.

Postby PourMeTea » Wed Sep 11, 2013 9:48 am

Post removed.
Last edited by PourMeTea on Fri May 08, 2015 12:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SecondWind
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 10:06 pm

Re: Prep Test 53, section 3, question 25

Postby SecondWind » Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:29 am

Love the name...bitch!

User avatar
Silvermanlsat
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:06 pm

Re: Prep Test 53, section 3, question 25

Postby Silvermanlsat » Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:06 pm

We are looking here for an answer choice that justifies the conclusion that Terry should not be required to attend the meeting. We know that the only issues discussed at a meeting are going to be those relevant to a majority of those attending the meeting.

We are also told that if none of the issues discussed at a meeting are relevant to a person, then that person is not required to attend the meeting. We're then told that Terry should not be required to attend the meeting. This conclusion would be justified if in fact none of the issues discussed at the meeting are relevant to Terry.

Let's negate choice C. What if an issue relevant to Terry were also an issue relevant to a majority of those attending the meeting. The issue would be relevant to Terry, and the issue would be discussed at the meeting (because it would be relevant to a majority of those attending). The conclusion that Terry should not attend the meeting because no issue discussed at the meeting would be relevant to him would be therefore invalided.

So, the opposite justifies the conclusion; namely, that no issue relevant to Terry could be relevant to a majority of those attending the meeting (choice C).

User avatar
walterwhite
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:31 pm

Re: Prep Test 53, section 3, question 25

Postby walterwhite » Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:22 pm

PourMeTea wrote:
walterwhite wrote:by the way I found this test to be very difficult. some tricky LR questions and 2 absolutely diabolical logic games (games 3 and 4). game 4 especially had a very bizarre setup. I was just wondering if this test stood out as particularly difficult for anyone else.


Your use of most/majority is correct. (E) is not tcr because of the wording of the scope- the stimulus isn't discussing "a majority of issues", it's discussing "issues relevant to a majority of those attending". Another way to look at it is to look at the implications of (E)- if the majority of issues aren't relevant to Terry, it still leaves open the possibility that some issues ARE relevant, which, as we know, violates the principle.



i realize now i actually made a really dumb mistake. since i knew majority could include 100%, i took it to mean it must mean 100% haha i don't know why i did that. hope that doesnt happen in 3 weeks!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests