QUESTION TEXT: It is clear that none of the volleyball players at yesterday’s…
QUESTION TYPE: Parallel Reasoning
CONCLUSION: None of the volleyball players at the office party came to work.
REASONING: Every volleyball player got sunburned. No one at work today was sunburned.
ANALYSIS: This is a good argument. If you aren’t sunburned then you didn’t play volleyball. Since no one at work is sunburned then no one at work is a volleyball player.
Normally it’s important to mirror the structure. There was one sufficient necessary condition, and the argument required taking the contrapositive of that condition.
Not sunburned ? not a volleyball player (the contrapositive of the statement)
But in this case, all four of the wrong answer choices are bad arguments. The structure of answer choice D doesn’t quite match but that’s all right. It’s the only good argument.
___________
- The conclusion is wrong. It’s possible that some TRF employees were not given the opportunity to purchase dental insurance.
- This makes an incorrect negation. Sure, everyone who was promoted went. But maybe people who weren’t promoted went too. Maybe the whole company went.
- You may have a reputation for being hardworking despite the fact that you are lazy. Or vice versa. Reputation is not the same things as actually being something.
- CORRECT. If you take a July vacation, then you don’t work for the president. Therefore nobody on the second floor will take a July vacation since they all work for the president.
- Actually, this provides strong evidence that MXM isn’t hiring anybody. How could it be hiring if everyone has been there at least five years?
Recap: The question begins with “It is clear that none of the volleyball players at yesterday’s”. It is a Parallel Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Parallel questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.
Leave a Reply