Q25 - Principle: Meetings should be kept

[ohthatpatrick]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Principle Application (We get the principle and the conclusion, but not the missing trigger idea)

Break down the Stimulus:

Principle: Meetings should be short. If an issue isn't relevant to most attendees -> don't address it. If no issue is relevant to person X --> person X shouldn't be required to attend the meeting.
Application: Terry shouldn't be required to attend the 2 o'clock meeting.

Any prephrase?
To prove Terry doesn't need to attend, we need to know that none of the issues being discussed at the meeting are relevant to Terry.

Correct answer:
C

Answer choice analysis:
A) "making a presentation" is totally new. We just need to know whether any of the issues being discussed are relevant to Terry.

B) Again with "making a presentation"? Irrelevant.

C) This says, "If an issue is relevant to Terry, it isn't relevant to most attendees". From the other principle we were told, we could chain onto that "if it's relevant to Terry, it isn't relevant to most attendees, which means it WON'T be addressed at the meeting." It looks like we just successfully established, by contrapositive, that "if it IS addressed at the meeting, it isn't relevant to Terry".

D) This is saying that Terry will be the tie-breaking vote on at least one issue. If his attendance changes the set of relevant issues, then he is the deciding vote on whether at least one issue would be relevant or irrelevant to most attendees. This could result from him saying "it's relevant to me, thus we've achieved a majority!" or it could result from him saying "it's irrelevant to me, thus this issue does NOT have a majority". So this answer leaves it unclear whether any issue would be relevant to Terry.

E) Cool, but "most" isn't good enough. We need NO issues to be relevant to Terry.

Takeaway/Pattern: Even though the Application turned our focus to the 2nd rule, we might have suspected that LSAT would still make us use the 1st rule, especially since "relevance" was an overlapping idea in the two rules. Knowing we need to trigger "NONE of the issues are relevant to Terry" is the most important mantra. Only (C) convinces us that none of the issues will be relevant to Terry.

#officialexplanation

[jhouseut]

I don't understand why (E) is wrong. I'm missing something in the formal chain

Meetings address only issues relevant to majority

MA --> IRM

A person should not be required to be addressed at the meeting if none of the issues to be addressed at the meeting are relevant to that person.

~IRM --> ~PR

C: Terry = ~PR


Requires - ~IRM - issues not relevant to majority

[noah]

I think you've used formal logic where it's not really needed. Here, the issue is careful attention to the details.

(E) is incorrect because the principle states that at least one of the issues needs to be relevant in order for a person to be required. It does NOT state that a majority of issues needs to be relevant.

(A) and (B) are incorrect because they introduce the idea of presentations, when we care about whether the issues are relevant.

(D) is incorrect because changing the set of issues, as long as they remain relevant, is fine.

(C) is correct because if an issue is not relevant to the majority, it will not be discussed, and since all the issues that are relevant to Terry fall into that category.

Does that help?

[shirando21]

I think you've used formal logic where it's not really needed. Here, the issue is careful attention to the details.

(E) is incorrect because the principle states that at least one of the issues needs to be relevant in order for a person to be required. It does NOT state that a majority of issues needs to be relevant.

(A) and (B) are incorrect because they introduce the idea of presentations, when we care about whether the issues are relevant.

(D) is incorrect because changing the set of issues, as long as they remain relevant, is fine.

(C) is correct because if an issue is not relevant to the majority, it will not be discussed, and since all the issues that are relevant to Terry fall into that category.

.

The principle says: if NONE of the issues to be addressed at the meeting are relevant to a person, then that person should not be required to attend a meeting.

E only says the majority of the issues are irrelevant, it has to be None is relevant, all are irrelevant, to get the conclusion that Terry is not required to attend the meeting.

[noah]

I think you've used formal logic where it's not really needed. Here, the issue is careful attention to the details.

(E) is incorrect because the principle states that at least one of the issues needs to be relevant in order for a person to be required. It does NOT state that a majority of issues needs to be relevant.

The principle says: if NONE of the issues to be addressed at the meeting are relevant to a person, then that person should not be required to attend a meeting.

E only says the majority of the issues are irrelevant, it has to be None is relevant, all are irrelevant, to get the conclusion that Terry is not required to attend the meeting.

Looks like we're saying the same thing, but from different angles. Great minds think almost alike!

[shirando21]

hahaha, agree. E was a tricky answer. A correct answer for question 25 would not be so obvious, there must be some tricks.

[alexg89]

Noah's explanation is great. I'm including mine because I wrote it up for my own notes and decided that I might as well post it here as well if anyone is looking for a different way of explaining any of the answer choices.


The only reason given to justify why someone may be absent is if they have NO issues that would have any relevance. Must prove without a doubt.

A: Leaves room for possible scenario: What if another issue is being presented that would have relevance to Terry? He would then not have any excuse to be absent.

B: The meeting doesn’t always have to be short. It only says that it should be kept short.

C: Any issue could that concern Terry could at most be relevant to 49% of everyone attending the meeting. Therefore none of those issues are important enough to be addressed. Since those issues are not addressed then it is not possible for any issue being presented to be relevant to Terry at all, giving him grounds for excusing himself.

D: Does not allow you to infer anything. A different set of issues that are still relevant to a majority doesn’t give you any information to conclude Terry could be excused.

E: Leaves open the possibility that some issues could be relevant to Terry so he wouldn’t be properly able to excuse himself.

[kpopstar123]

I felt as though using the formal logic on this question would be a better approach.

Anyway,

I was confused because of the way I set up my conditional statements: Majority Irrelevant + Long -> Not required to attend.

I thought both of those were sufficient factors...

However, C is addressing only to one of them...

So my question is,

Should be kept short is definitely not the same thing as "has to be short" right?

So essentially, the argument is presenting

Majority Irrelevant -> Not required to attend in the Principle?

[yhyuna]

Hello! 2 Questions!

1. How would you categorize this question type?

2. I understand why (c) is right and the rest is wrong, but I see a potential gap in (c). I'm hoping someone can disprove this gap to me, so that (c) looks more attractive. I have an issue with "a majority of those who do ATTEND" and "the issues to be ADDRESSED." Maybe Terry does have issues relevant to the majority of those attending the meeting. But perhaps those particular issues are not being addressed, and only the ones that are addressed are the issues not relevant to both Terry and the majority. If that's the case, then it is not necessary for Terry to have NO issues irrelevant to the majority attending the 2 o'clock meeting.

Does this gap (if it is indeed correct) make a difference in the answer choice? I think the stem of my problem comes from I'm not exactly sure what type of question it is. E.g. If this was a strengthen question (I think this is what it is, but I'm not sure), then it doesn't matter if there was a gap because we're assuming it to be already true, and we just need an AC that helps support (not necessarily seal) the argument?

Sorry if this is convoluted!

[noah]

I was confused because of the way I set up my conditional statements: Majority Irrelevant + Long -> Not required to attend.

I thought both of those were sufficient factors...

However, C is addressing only to one of them...

I do see that none relevant --> not required to attend

And I see should be addressed --> relevant to majority
But I'm not sure I'd combine them.

So my question is,

Should be kept short is definitely not the same thing as "has to be short" right?

So essentially, the argument is presenting

Majority Irrelevant -> Not required to attend in the Principle?

Yes, I agree with this last conditional statement.

Should be is different than has to be, but I don't see "has to be short" anywhere in the stimulus.

[noah]

Hello! 2 Questions!

1. How would you categorize this question type?

2. I understand why (c) is right and the rest is wrong, but I see a potential gap in (c). I'm hoping someone can disprove this gap to me, so that (c) looks more attractive. I have an issue with "a majority of those who do ATTEND" and "the issues to be ADDRESSED." Maybe Terry does have issues relevant to the majority of those attending the meeting. But perhaps those particular issues are not being addressed, and only the ones that are addressed are the issues not relevant to both Terry and the majority. If that's the case, then it is not necessary for Terry to have NO issues irrelevant to the majority attending the 2 o'clock meeting.

Does this gap (if it is indeed correct) make a difference in the answer choice? I think the stem of my problem comes from I'm not exactly sure what type of question it is. E.g. If this was a strengthen question (I think this is what it is, but I'm not sure), then it doesn't matter if there was a gap because we're assuming it to be already true, and we just need an AC that helps support (not necessarily seal) the argument?

Sorry if this is convoluted!

1. I'd categorize this as principle application question.

2. There's no reason to talk about whether something is necessary. We're simply looking for an answer that allows us to apply the principle and result in "Terry shouldn't have to come to the meeting." I see what you mean about the difference between issues addressed at a meeting and issues in general, but it's irrelevant to this question.

[samuelfbaron]

I, too, originally circled (E) for this answer but reread it before moving on and selecting (C).

This is actually not that difficult of a question, it's just that the answers are all very similar.

Principle: Person should not be required to attend meeting if none of the issues are relevant to that person. (NOTE SAYS NOTHING ABOUT MAJORITY OR AT LEAST ONE ISSUE)

Application: Terry shouldn't be required to go to the meeting.

Based on this we can basically predict the answer: No issue will be relevant to Terry. (C) matches this pre-phrase.

I'd also like to note : we know NOTHING about what issues are relevant to the majority. We have no idea whether or not what will be relevant to Terry, will be relevant to the majority. I find the first part of the principle to be almost a red herring and bears no consequence on the selection of the answers. The first part is looking at 'issues which are at the meeting'. It says nothing about whether or not someone shouldn't attend. The fact that the application states Terry shouldn't attend should cue you in to looking at the second part of the Principle where it discusses Why someone shouldn't attend.

[asafezrati]

I was confused because of the way I set up my conditional statements: Majority Irrelevant + Long -> Not required to attend.

I thought both of those were sufficient factors...

However, C is addressing only to one of them...

I do see that none relevant --> not required to attend

And I see should be addressed --> relevant to majority
But I'm not sure I'd combine them.

So my question is,

Should be kept short is definitely not the same thing as "has to be short" right?

So essentially, the argument is presenting

Majority Irrelevant -> Not required to attend in the Principle?

Yes, I agree with this last conditional statement.

Should be is different than has to be, but I don't see "has to be short" anywhere in the stimulus.

I still don't understand two things regarding the "should" issue.
1. Does the word "should" relate to both "be kept short" and "addressing only majority-relevant issues"?
2. If the meeting SHOULD address only the majority-relevant issues, it seems that this word doesn't automatically compell the meeting mentioned in answer choice C to include only the majority-relevant issues. In this case I think that the question stem's "most" comes into action.

Your thoughts?

Thanks!

[kyuya]

I think (C) is just a convoluted way of saying IF Terry goes ---> THEN the issues will not be relevant to a majority of the people (which is a condition needed for the principle to be upheld).

[HillaryN157]

I struggled with choosing (C) because of the word "issue." I interpreted the word to mean, well, *ANY* issue, not just those addressed at the meeting. What if they were talking about, say, an issue Terry thought of while outside of work?

So, my question is, in instances like this, how do we know whether to use our common sense and apply a concept to only what we are given, or whether to consider all the possible alternatives of that concept? Are these principle application questions a case in which we should just stick to the parameters of what we are given?