Q14 - If Slater wins the election

[LSAT on Brain]

I picked "E", which is correct. However I was unsure about why "B" is wrong.

I assume that B is wrong because it states that McGuinness can ONLY be appointed if Slater wins, and that cannot be inferred from the article.

However, I only know that is how the test works. I do not fully see that logically.

[timmydoeslsat]

I picked "E", which is correct. However I was unsure about why "B" is wrong.

I assume that B is wrong because it states that McGuinness can ONLY be appointed if Slater wins, and that cannot be inferred from the article.

However, I only know that is how the test works. I do not fully see that logically.

We really have this logic chain:

Polls not grossly inacc. ---> SW ---> MA

And we know that M is not the best qualified person to be appointed.

So answer choice B is confusing sufficient and necessary conditions.

It could still be true that the polls are grossly inaccurate and Slater will win.

We also know of one way that M will be appointed...by Slater winning. Slater can lose the election and M can still be appointed by the challenger.

[LSAT on Brain]

So to rephrase that you are saying: that the train of logic in the passage only says that if polls favor S, if SW then MA. But we never excluded other ways of MA. We are only mapping out one path.

[timmydoeslsat]

Exactly right.

[tommywallach]

Hey Guys,

Just wanted to weigh in on this, though it sounds like everything has been sorted out very well. I'm definitely a big fan of following logic chains, but at the same time, it's worth just thinking it through:

Premise: If Slater wins, McG will be appointed head of PC.

On the LSAT, you can almost assume they're going to take advantage of the difference between this statement and:

"Only if Slater wins will McG be appointed head of PC."

In one case, McG cannot be appointed any other way, in the other case, McG can be appointed by the challenger (as Timmy mentioned), or by public referendum, or in a violent coup, or any other way.

You should always be ready for this game/trick, because it's more or less inevitable.

Hope that helps, and thanks as always Timmy!

-t

[LSAT on Brain]

Tommy,

Thanks for weighing in.

So your saying the regardless of the logic train I should look out for the wording - which is this case adds the word "only" - which indicated there is no other way for MA. That idea (of excluding other ways of MA) is not suggested or supported by the passage.

[ixxiwang]

What about D? Why is that wrong?

[sumukh09]

What about D? Why is that wrong?

We want something we can infer so it has to be readily proven by the logic in the stimulus. Let's take a look at that logic and see why D cannot be inferred.

(1) Slater Wins ---> McGuinness Appointed Head
(2) Yerxses more qualified than McGuinness
(3) Polls Not Inaccurate ---> Slater Wins

Combining (3) + (1) we get:

Polls Not Inaccurate ---> Slater Wins ---> McGuinness Appointed

What tempted you about D was that because Yerxses has those qualities that make her more qualified, you assumed that McGuinness did not have those qualities. D says McGuinness is BOTH not an architect and has not been on the committee for 15 or more years. McGuiness could very well be on the committee for 15 or more years and NOT be an architect OR he could be an architect and not be on the committee for 15 years or more.

D says he's not both. We can't infer that.