Logical reasoning PrepTest 124 · Section 3 · Question 25

Incorrect. Making a presentation is out of the scope of the Principle. Additionally, if Terry is making a presentation on a topic, then it's almost certainly something relevant to her and thus wouldn't allow for the application of the Principle.

Incorrect. Similar to (A), making a presentation is out of scope, and Terry making a presentation on an issue would similarly make that issue relevant to her.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
P: Meeting → Kept short
Meeting issue → Relevant to a majority of attendees
not At least one issue relevant to person → not Person required to attend

A: Terry - not Person required to attend

Answer Anticipation:
There are actually several principles stated in the stimulus here! That's fine, though, as we're trying to justify the application, so we can use any or all of those principles!

Let's start by walking through the diagram. We broke the first sentence into two principles—you could probably have made it a single principle (something like Meeting → Short AND Only address issues relevant to a majority), but there's no reason to complicate a principle when we're trying to apply it. The second sentence is a more straightforward "if" conditional, so no tricks there!

Since we have options as to which principle we can apply, let's start with the application—there, it states that Terry shouldn't be required to attend a meeting this afternoon. Are there any principles that provide a sufficient condition for not requiring a person to attend a meeting? Yep—if there aren't any issues at that meeting relevant to the person in question. So one potential answer will establish that none of the issues at the 2:00pm meeting are relevant to Terry.

Do the other conditionals play a role here? The length of the meeting doesn't appear to have any ties to the other requirements. The second conditional we diagrammed does talk about issues relevant to a majority of attendees, so it's a related but not exact term. Is there any way to connect them? Yep—since we know that the issues at the meeting are relevant to a majority of the attendees, but we need to establish that the issues aren't relevant to Terry to justify the application, we can also look for an answer that connects those issues—any issue relevant to a majority of the meeting's attendees isn't relevant to Terry.

Either answer would suffice, so let's keep an eye out for both!

Answer Explanation:
The Principle establishes that only issues that are relevant to a majority of attendees should be raised at a meeting. If that's the case, and if no issue relevant to Terry is relevant to a majority of attendees, then no issue relevant to Terry will be raised at the meeting. The Principle also establishes that one should not be required to attend a meeting if no issue relevant to them is to be raised. Therefore, this answer justifies the Application.

Key Takeaway:
If there are multiple Principles/conditionals in a question that asks you to apply it to a scenario, start by diagramming out all of the principles. From there, see which one is related to the conclusion/judgment drawn in the Application. You should be able to see what's missing from the Application that prevents the principle from being applied, and the answer should establish that missing piece of information.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't justify whether Terry should attend, just what issues should be addressed if he does.

Incorrect. The sufficient condition of the Principle guaranteeing someone shouldn't have to attend a meeting is that "none" of the issues at the meeting are relevant to that person. A majority doesn't cut it, so this answer doesn't justify the application.