LSAT 125 – Section 2 – Question 05

LSAT 125 - Section 2 - Question 05

June 2008

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:07

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
PT125 S2 Q05
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
Rule-Application +RuleApp
Eliminating Options +ElimOpt
A
2%
153
B
91%
163
C
6%
156
D
0%
148
E
0%
149
127
138
148
 +Easier 145.417 +SubsectionEasier

Byrne: One of our club’s bylaws specifies that any officer who fails to appear on time for any one of the quarterly board meetings, or who misses two of our monthly general meetings, must be suspended. Thibodeaux, an officer, was recently suspended. But Thibodeaux has never missed a monthly general meeting. Therefore, Thibodeaux must have failed to appear on time for a quarterly board meeting.

A
fails to consider the possibility that Thibodeaux has arrived late for two or more monthly general meetings
We know that Thibodeaux didn’t miss any monthly meetings. Lateness to a monthly meeting is irrelevant, since we’re not told that this leads to a suspension. (Lateness to quarterly is sufficient for suspension, but we don’t know about lateness to monthly.)
B
presumes, without providing justification, that if certain events each produce a particular result, then no other event is sufficient to produce that result
The author assumes that nothing besides lateness to quarterly or missing 2 monthly could be sufficient for suspension. This overlooks the possibility that other things could also be sufficient for suspension. That’s why Thib. doesn’t have to have been late to a quarterly meeting.
C
takes for granted that an assumption required to establish the argument’s conclusion is sufficient to establish that conclusion
The assumption required to establish the conclusion is the idea that there’s no other way to be suspended besides the two conditions mentioned. That assumption actually would be sufficient to establish the conclusion, so (C) doesn’t describe a flaw in this argument.
D
fails to specify at what point someone arriving at a club meeting is officially deemed late
The exact timing involved in being “late” is irrelevant. We can still label someone as “late” without knowing exactly how late they were.
E
does not specify how long Thibodeaux has been an officer
The length of time Thibodeaux has been an officer is irrelevant. None of the conditions in the rule concerning suspension relate to years of experience as an officer.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 125 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply