Logical reasoning PrepTest 146 · Section 3 · Question 20

Incorrect. While this would establish that at least one company lawyer wasn't consulted (assuming the president was correct), it doesn't establish that there aren't other lawyers and that they weren't consulted, so it doesn't justify the conclusion.

Incorrect. It was already established that Yeung wasn't told about these changes (again, assuming the president's statement was true). And we have no idea who Grimes is, or who's on the legal team.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
President Ð Changes were made without consulting her or Yeung
Grimes Ð Before changes are made, the president or a company lawyer must be consulted
Conclusion Ð If the president and Grimes are telling the truth, the contract was violated

Answer Anticipation:
First, let's note the conditional nature of the conclusion. This conclusion is conditioned on the company president's and Grimes's statements being true, so the correct answer doesn't need to establish either of those things.

Now, to the argument itself. The conclusion is that the contract was violated. According to Grimes—whose statements we're taking as true since the conclusion is conditioned on that—the contract requires changes to be run by the president or a company lawyer.

The president said that she wasn't consulted—again, a condition of the conclusion is that we treat that as true—and neither was Yeung. So we know that at least one of the options to meet the contract's requirement wasn't met—the president wasn't consulted. However, that leaves open the other option—consulting with one of the company's lawyers. Yeung wasn't consulted, but there's no indication that Yeung is a lawyer, or even if she is, there are no other lawyers that were consulted.

In order to justify the conclusion that the contract was violated, it must be established that no company lawyers were consulted. The answer here could or could not involve Yeung, but the more important feature of it is that it talks about a lack of legal consultation.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that the other option to meet the requirement wasn't met—no company lawyers were consulted about the procedural change. Since the contract requires either the president or a lawyer be consulted on such a change, and the stimulus already established that the president wasn't, this justifies the conclusion that the contract was violated.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever a conclusion is based on a condition—here, that certain statements were correct—it's important to note. Without that condition here, the argument would need to establish that the statements made by the president and Grimes were true for the conclusion to hold.

Incorrect. This answer is a partial negation (leaving out the lawyers) of the principle underlying the argument—it can't justify a conclusion that the contract wasn't violated because it is set up to justify when the contract isn't violated.

Incorrect. Since the conclusion is that the contract was violated, this answer still requires the triggering condition—that no lawyer was consulted—to be met, and it fails to do so. It therefore does not' justify the conclusion.