PrepTest 123

[lcid:3589] Prep Test 123 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S2 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

An undergraduate degree is Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: B

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Question Type

Strengthen with Sufficient Premise Questions / Sufficient & Necessary Questions

Stimulus Summary

Executive board → Undergrad degree
Felony → not Executive board
Murray: Felony, Undergrad degree
Therefore, Murray can't be appointed to Exec Admin

Answer Anticipation

The conclusion here is that Murray can't be appointed to a certain position. There are two conditional rules that set up requirements for being appointed to the executive board: an undergrad degree, and no felony convictions. Murray meets the first requirement, but he also has a felony conviction. Based on the second conditional rule, that means he can't be appointed to the executive board.
That makes the argument seem valid, but let's compare what we just inferred to the conclusion. Our inference is that Murray can't be appointed to the executive board; the conclusion is that he can't be appointed to Executive Administrator. There's no indication that the Executive Administrator is on the executive board. If that position is on the board, Murray can't be appointed and the argument is valid. The correct answer needs to draw that connection.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Anyone with a master's Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Incorrect. Murray has a felony conviction, so this answer choice doesn't let us draw conclusions about him. This answer is a negation of what we need to prove Murray can't be appointed.
  2. B
    Only candidates eligible for Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B matches the stem
    Correct. This answer choice connects the position of EA to the board (EA → Eligible for board; not Eligible for board → not EA). Murray isn't eligible for the board since he has a felony conviction, and this answer guarantees that someone not eligible for the board can't be appointed EA, thus validating the conclusion.
  3. C
    An undergraduate degree is Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    Incorrect. This answer choice establishes that the requirements for EA are not the same as the requirements for the board. If anything, that attacks the argument, which relies on someone who isn't eligible for the board also not being eligible for the EA position.
  4. D
    If Murray did not Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    Incorrect. Since the question is asking us to justify the conclusion that Murray isn't eligible for the position, what would be true in a hypothetical alternative world doesn't help, so this answer is wrong.
  5. E
    The felony charge on Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    Incorrect. The established rules aren't about what type of felony someone is convicted of, just that they are convicted of a felony. This answer choice is out of scope.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion