video

There is no need for a video explanation here because the question does not contain any major visual aspects. Please follow along the written explanation below: "Some planning committee members--those representing the construction industry--have significant financial interests in the committee's decision." Q1: PC-some-SFI SFI-some-PC "No one who is on the planning committee lives in the suburbs," P1: PC ==> not LS LS ==> not PC Since we know that we can connect a quantifier statement with a Sufficient & Necessary Statement when the right-hand side variable of the Quantifier Statement is the same as the sufficient condition of the Sufficient & Necessary Statement, we can connect Q1 and P1 like so: SFI-some-PC ==> not LS to conclude: SFI-some-not LS, meaning some members of the planning committee with significant financial interest in the committee's decisions do not live in the suburbs, i.e. answer choice (E). Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Why is C wrong? I thought you could connect PC -some- SFI and PC-some- WS (work there) to get SFI-some-WS.

You can NEVER make a valid deduction by combining two some statements.

Why is E correct as it states "some people" not committee members? There is nothing in the passage that talks about people in general.

Not sure I am understanding your question here. "Some" means "at least one" so it does not have to talk about people in general. The first sentence here is, "Some planning committee members . . . " Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Hi, I'm having trouble distinguishing B and E, and why B isn't correct. Please advise, thank you!

Hi! Thanks for your question. As explained above, the statements presented in the stimulus (which are just facts - no argument) can be diagrammed as follows: "Some planning committee members - those representing the construction industry - have significant financial interests in the committee's decision." PC-some-SFI SFI-some-PC "No one who is on the planning committee lives in the suburbs." PC ==> not LS LS ==> not PC Answer choice (E) consists of a valid transitive of these two statements, as follows: SFI-some-PC ==> not LS, or put another way: SFI-some-not LS Answer choice (B) can be diagrammed as: SFI ==> not LS The issue with this answer is that it is overstated - we do not know based on the given facts that NO people with significant financial interests in the planning committee's decisions live in the suburbs. Via the transitive property, the most we can know is that SOME such people do not live in the suburbs. Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.

I do not see how we can connect financial interests to anything else, as the passage is first talking about those rep the construction industry have financial interests. then it goes onto to said no one who is on the planning committee.....I would think everyone, including those outside of construction industry. it didn't say this planning committee is all construction industry people. very confusing and set it up wrong from the start.

Seems like there are new twist with every question, when we learn one thing , something else that's not taught pops up

Hi @J.T I remember that feeling well — however, I can assure you that the new twists ahead are limited, and that the LSAT is an entirely learnable exam. Once you have mastered the core techniques, the key simply becomes lots of repetition to get a sense for how those techniques can be applied to different question types. You will get the hang of it with time, I promise!

Why did we not diagram PCM - some - WIS (work in the suburbs)? That tripped me up here. Totally get that feeling too @Jacob-R - feel like I get stuck on or get more questions wrong than I get right! When does it get better?!

Please can I follow up on this. Thank you.

Please can I follow up on this. Thank you!

Hello, Can you please explain the question above: "why did we not diagram PCM - some- WIS (works in the suburbs)? With that diagram I connected WIS - some PCM --> Not LS Therefore: WIS - some - Not LS I know this has to be wrong, I am just confused as to why. Thanks