Top Law Schools

I checked on Manhattan and there was not an explanation for this one.

I do not miss many LR questions, but I missed #3 in the first section, which is surprising, but nonetheless it happened.

It is a principle question.

#3

The Chairperson states that the board of directors of the corporation should not allow the incentives being offers by two foreign governments to ENTICE us to expand our operations into their countries without further consideration of the issue.

It ends by saying that there is a chance to increase profits by expanding the operations there, but that both countries are politically unstable.

I suppose principle questions in general are my biggest culprits on LR. I always felt that principle question require something that can lead us to their prescriptive sense of something that should be done or not be done.

So, in this stimulus, I need a principle that can guide me to "should not allow...to ENTICE...."

In answer choice A, we have a principle that says "A corporation should never expand operations into countries that are politically unstable." Sounds good to me?

If a corporation should never expand operations into countries that are politically unstable, then if you applied that to the stimulus, you are barring yourself from being enticed because even with the enticement you are not going to go through with the expansion.

The correct answer is D. "Corporations should always be cautious about expanding operations into politically unstable countries." Are you kidding me? How is this MORE correct than answer choice A?

How can (A) be wrong?

secretad wrote:The Chairperson states that the board of directors of the corporation should not allow the incentives being offers by two foreign governments to ENTICE us to expand our operations into their countries without further consideration of the issue.

You're looking for a principle that the Chairperson's positions conforms to; in other words, if the Chairperson believed the principle in the correct answer choice, he would make the decision he made in the stimulus. The crucial part of the stimulus is that he doesn't say we should definitely not go into these countries, just that we shouldn't do so without further consideration.

Answer choice (A) suggests that they should never go into politically unstable countries. If this was the principle under which the Chairperson was operating, then he would have said "We should not expand into these new countries at all." He didn't say that, so his argument does not conform to this principle.

Answer choice (D) suggests caution. If the Chairperson was cautious, he might suggest waiting until further consideration to see if it is a good idea before expanding into the new countries. That's what he did, so his argument conforms to this principle.

I appreciate it suspicious android.

I would like to ask you or others for help on another one from the same section of logical reasoning from PrepTest 32.

#23 about the inconsistency of a party's policy.

I erroneously picked A too quick without reading the word legislator in the answer choice rather than party policy.

However, I am struggling how best to approach the correct answer (D) because I would like to apply the negation test to it.

First, I need to read over correctly before I do that. On these double negative statements, is it correct or proper to simply dismiss both negatives and read it from that perspective?

I am having trouble getting the answer in my head.

A is incorrect because the chairperson says no operation without further consideration of the issue. So there is a possibility the coorporation would expand operations in politically unstable counties.

Can someone help with number 23 from section 1. I talked about it in my previous post in this thread.

secretad wrote:Can someone help with number 23 from section 1. I talked about it in my previous post in this thread.

can you quote it? I don't have that PT

Check PM in about 2 minutes.

secretad wrote:First, I need to read over correctly before I do that. On these double negative statements, is it correct or proper to simply dismiss both negatives and read it from that perspective?

No, do not do that. For example:

No cows are not hungry.
Cows are hungry.

Those two statements are not logical opposites. The logical opposite can be found by removing the "no" in the first sentence. You should only negate one part of any particular sentence, the main quantifier or the main verb.