LSAT 107 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q24

LR Question 24 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Mr. Nance: Ms. Chan said that she retired from Quad…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Either Ms. Chan is lying or her colleague is lying.

REASONING: Ms. Chan said she retired from Quad Cities. But her colleague says she is going on business trips.

ANALYSIS: Mr. Nance ignores the possibility that Ms. Chan took another job after retiring.

He doesn’t understand that you can retire from a company without going into a period of “retirement” where you do no work at all.

___________

1. Hearsay is fine. We can trust people’s oral evidence, generally.
2. The argument does criticize Ms. Chan’s claims: it says she lied. That’s a statement of fact, not a personal attack.
3. CORRECT. The argument uses “retired” and “retirement” to mean to different things. The first is: “Stopped working at some place after working there a while.” The second is “not doing any work at all after your career is over.” It’s possible to retire from a company but not go into retirement.
4. If this were true, then Ms. Chan would have been lying when she said she retired. That was one of the possibilities mentioned in the conclusion.
5. Ha. Loyal service doesn’t mean that someone never, ever lies.

Recap: The question begins with “Mr Nance: Ms Chan said that she retired from Quad”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Flaw questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.