LSAT 107 – Section 1 – Question 18

LSAT 107 - Section 1 - Question 18

October 1999

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 2:06

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT107 S1 Q18
+LR
Must be true +MBT
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
Quantifier +Quant
A
2%
157
B
19%
161
C
14%
160
D
8%
160
E
57%
168
154
162
170
 +Hardest 147.515 +SubsectionMedium

Some planning committee members—those representing the construction industry—have significant financial interests in the committee’s decisions. No one who is on the planning committee lives in the suburbs, although many of them work there.

Summary
Some planning committee members have sig. financial interests in the decisions. (The members who represent the construction industry have sig. financial interests in the decisions.)
Anyone on the planning committee does not live in the suburbs.
Some planning committee members work in the suburbs.

Notable Valid Inferences
Some people with significant financial interests do not live in the suburbs.
Some people who represent the construction industry do not live in the suburbs.
(If you know All A is B, and Some A is C, you can conclude Some B is C.)

A
No persons with significant financial interests in the planning committee’s decisions are not in the construction industry.
Could be false. We don’t know that everyone with sig. financial interests is in the construction industry. We only know that the PC members who represent the construction industry have sig. financial interests. Could be many people with sig. fin. int. outside of construction.
B
No person who has a significant financial interest in the planning committee’s decisions lives in the suburbs.
Could be false. This goes too far. We don’t know there are “no” people who have sig. financial interests who live in the suburbs. We know there are SOME who have sig. financial interests who don’t live in the suburbs.
C
Some persons with significant financial interests in the planning committee’s decisions work in the suburbs.
Could be false. Although we know some PC members have significant financial interests, and some PC members work in the suburbs, these members don’t have to overlap. No inference from 2 “some” statements.
D
Some planning committee members who represent the construction industry do not work in the suburbs.
Could be false. We don’t know anything about anyone who does NOT work in the suburbs. We only know that some PC members work in the suburbs.
E
Some persons with significant financial interests in the planning committee’s decisions do not live in the suburbs.
Must be true. All PC members do not live in the suburbs. Some PC members have sig. financial interests. So, some people who don’t live in the suburbs have sig. financial interests. (And you can reverse this — some people with sig. financial interests don’t live in the suburbs.)

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 107 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply