If half of the crew are union, and the crew itself is half of the company, why can you not say that 1/4 of the company are union?
The other answer also makes sense, that less than half of the company are union as well, I just don't understand why the other answer is incorrect.
Thanks
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- cobyerez79
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 13
- Joined: October 22nd, 2010
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
Re: 2136
Yeah, the wording of that one is either suspect/tricky.
You could say that AT LEAST 1/4 of the company is union.
But the other half of the company (the non-crew half) could all be union, in which case 3/4 of the company is union.
Typically, I think LSAT would ask us to interpret the statement "1/4 of the company is union" as EXACTLY 1/4 not AT LEAST 1/4.
Does that make sense?
You could say that AT LEAST 1/4 of the company is union.
But the other half of the company (the non-crew half) could all be union, in which case 3/4 of the company is union.
Typically, I think LSAT would ask us to interpret the statement "1/4 of the company is union" as EXACTLY 1/4 not AT LEAST 1/4.
Does that make sense?
2 posts Page 1 of 1