Top Law Schools

A happy household is one in which all members of the family dine together at least four nights out of the week. In order for a family to dine together on such a regular basis, one of two conditions must exist: The family members must not have busy schedules, or they must each be willing to make an effort to sacrifice time for one another. No one without a busy schedule is truly happy, since human beings must work in order to be happy. And a household may not be happy if any of its members is not happy.

Can someone please clarify the meaning of "may not" in the example above? I'm not sure if it means that the household is possibly not happy if any member is not happy, or if it means that the household can not be happy if any of its members is not happy.

Can someone also explain this (dreadful) question; I'm convinced that McGraw is just pulling explanations out of his ass.

I. Houses that have dogs get fleas.
II. People who live in houses with fleas get fleas themselves.
III. If a person does not live with fleas, then he or she does not have a cat.

Which of the following makes it logical to claim that Bill has fleas?
(A) Bill has a cat.
(B) Bill has a dog.
(C) Bill lives in an apartment with fleas.
(D) Bill does not have fleas himself.
(E) Bill's brother, who lives in a house, has fleas.

If you are using the McGraw-Hill prep books STOP NOW! Burn them and get the powerscore bibles.