I am ashamed to admit this, but out of all the questions I've done in this lesson, this is the only one I have gotten correct .... little progress is better than no progress I guess.
What a perfect example of an answer choice which seems so obviously correct that you're hesitant to choose it solely because of this reason and end up wasting valuable time on double and triple confirming whether other answer choices are incorrect. LSAT test makers are some sneaky mfs
I didn't choose E because I thought it undermined the premise in the stimulus, just as I thought (B) was undermining Azedcorp's steadfast refusal to sell. :/
(D) felt like the right choice because I assumed Morris could buy more shares off others other than Azedcorp but I guess that was too much of a stretch
When I did the BR though, I reminded myself that the ACs had to be TRUE. If it's true that Azedcorp "will probably soon FORCE the sale of its newspaper holdings," I guess the (E) is correct...
Honestly though, if it wasn't for the "suggest for BR" sign, I would have still chosen (D). With (E), I thought it was a bit unclear because of the word "probably," and "newspaper holdings," (the lack of "all" holdings? idk) and the idea that they might sell to another person/company not Morris.
This question makes no sense. If E is correct and says the company is heading for bankruptcy and will be forced to sell why would it "steadfastly refuse" to sell. If they were going under wouldn't they want to sell in the first place
@KathyTyler$ Because sometimes people do dumb things out of principle, or any reason for that matter. Reasoning aside, they're refusing to sell. You're not buying the shares unless its out of their control, which is what E says.
@KathyTyler$ It helps to assume the ONLY world that exists is the one being described in the stim.
We must assume (even if it doesn't make sense) that both things are true at once (Azedcorp refuses to sell AND Azedcorp is going bankrupt) even if that doesn't make sense you must accept those things as true (because that's what the stim says and that's what the question stem "if true" forces you to do)
All we know is Azedcorp refuses to sell and Morris wants to buy and the analyst predicts Morris will soon be successful.
A) Azedcorp does not own shares of any newspaper other than The Daily.
Irrelevant. Whether Azedcorp owns or doesn't own shares of other newspapers DOESN't change the fact they are unwilling to sell.
B)Morris has recently offered Azedcorp much more for its shares of The Daily than Azedcorp paid for them.
More money doesn't mean Azedcorp will sell, maybe its a family company and Azedcorp doesn't actually care about money?
C) No one other than Morris has expressed any interest in purchasing a majority of The Daily's shares.
Azedcorp is unwilling to sell so whether or not others express interest doesn't change that.
D) Morris already owns more shares of The Daily than anyone except Azedcorp.
Cool? That doesn't make Azedcorp any more likely to sell their shares...it's irrelevant
E) Azedcorp is financially so weak that bankruptcy will probably soon force the sale of its newspaper holdings.
This is the only route (of the answer choices provided) that will see the analysts prediction (analyst predicts Morris will soon be successful.) come true. If Azedcorp is forced to sell Morris will be there to buy.
#feedback why was the blind review portion removed from these drills from the OG version? I feel like I take more time during these drills anyway, but just feel like it gives me an extra moment to decide whether my answer is correct or not.
Why could it not be that while Azedcorp owns a majority of shares that the total percentage owned is still under 50%? What if Azedcorp owns 40%, Morris owns 39% and Bob owns 21%? This makes Azedcorp the current majority owner. But then if Morris buys Bob's shares she will own 60% becoming the majority owner. Why was it assumed that to be a the majority holder you had to currently own more than 50%?
If you go back to the grammar lesson majority is synonymous with most which is 51% of the shares or more up to 99%, the question does not state owns more than any other shareholder it says owns a majority of all shares so it must be within that range
Is it correct that for a lot of these weaken/strengthen questions we can find an alternative hypothesis (like in RRE)? I find that in a lot of these I just looked for an alternative hypothesis/something that would disprove for the weaken questions. However is this the correct approach?
B still feels like the better answer. In E, just because they most likely will be forced to sell doesn't mean those shares are going to Morris. If a company is going bankrupt, then it should be fair to assume it will sell to anyone who wants the shares because they are going under. You know, "whatever just take them I'm done."
But B is saying Morris is directly offering Azedcorp more money than what they paid. A corporation is a corporation, it wants to make a profit no matter how small, and here they get more than what they paid. So if they accept the deal, those shares go directly to Morris, which in turn makes her majority owner. Why is B not correct????
"The only obstacle" safeguards all assumptions in regard to finance, ability to buy, etc. So when E rolls around and kills the only obstacle in Morris becoming majority owner, it supports the conclusion.
I agree, E forces us to assume that just because they going bankrupt that Morris also has the money to purchase the shares and will be the new majority. It requires way too many further assumptions of the industry prediction that "Morris will be the majority owner of the Daily"
B is too vague tho, if Azedcorp bought shares 20 years ago, of course Morris would be offering more money than they paid for the shares, so It kind of makes no sense that if they didn't sell to Morris at a profit, they then aren't selling it either way.
I would disagree. The stimulus already told you that Azedcorp does not want to sell. If she offered them more money than before, what assumption is required for that answer choice to even be close to strengthening the analysis that the industry experts made? That they will change their minds about not selling. If you take Azedcorp out like E does, then guess what the only obstacle is gone and she's able to take the majority of the shares.
B is less correct because it does not strongly overcome the premise that states "Amazon I mean Azedcorp is steadfastly not selling." It is almost precluded by the stim. E is more correct because if they are FORCED to sell by an outside factor that means that the the main obstacle for Moris is removed, allowing for the planned takeover.
Couldn't B also be wrong because it says that Morris is paying much more than they paid for, but couldn't their shares be valued higher than what they initially paid for them?
I had originally chosen B, but this reason above is what made me wonder if it was the right answer.
Also, does E make a good reasoning basis that "AC with predictions is okay if it is supporting a prediction"? The "will probably soon" language is why I didn't choose it to begin with because it seemed weak.
What is a "majority" exactly: does it mean you own the largest piece of the pie or does it mean you own a larger piece than everyone else? There's a difference. You could have comparatively more shares than everyone else, but if everyone else's shares were combined under one person, that person would suddenly have the most shares.
I chose D. My thinking behind that was that if Azedcorp owns 30% Carol owns 29% and the other for 40% is split between Rob and Sally. Wouldn't Azedcorp still own a majority of the shares and maybe Carol could by half of Rob's shares.
Azedcorp owns more than 50%. That is by definition what a majority means. Choice D attempts to contradict a stated premise, which is almost never what the LSAT is looking for.
Why is it okay to assume that for E, even if Azedcorp is forced to sell, they WILL sell to Morris? What is the boundary of assumptions made, especially if B is wrong for arguable assumptions as well?
Here, the assumptions for B vs. E can be explained by which are more reasonable or likely to occur. As for these questions the choices should be considered true, we can assume that (E) the selling of their shares is a likely possibility. In fact, E tells us that selling is more likely, thus offering a sense of direction. Regardless, of whether they sell, the possibility that they will sell makes it more likely that Morris will soon be the majority shareholder (although it is important to note that even if they sell it does not mean Morris will obtain these shares. But our job is not to prove Morris will be majority shareholder but rather prove it's LIKELY she could become. Bankruptcy and selling is the removal of one obstacle). In contrast, B gives us no indication at all what is possible - it leaves it open whether a larger amount of money can or cannot convince Azedcorp to sell. Moreover, we do not know how soon they will accept any offer and the consultant predicted that "soon."
I was between B. and E. but I could not being myself to choose E. because I thought E. was baiting me to make an assumption. E says, "Azedcorp is financially so weak that bankruptcy will probably soon force the sale of its newspaper holdings."
I was trying to be aware of sets/the size of sets, so I thought E. was baiting me to assume that if Azedcorps were to sell its newspaper holdings due to bankrupcy, it would necessarily sell its The Daily holdings. I was trying to be aware that Azedcorp could have many other newspaper holdings, and the sale of its newspaper holdings =/= the sale of all of its newspaper holdings =/= the sale of The Daily. So I thought E. was trying to bait me into making some unreasonable assumptions, but I guess I overthought and ended up being unreasonable about what is unreasonable?
To make E. work, you have to assume that bankruptcy will force Azedcorp to sell The Daily. To make B. work, you have to assume that Morris paying more will make Azedcorp sell. However, we don't know what other holdings Azedcorp has (and therefore what else it can sell to get out of bankruptcy without selling The Daily) and we also don't know why Azedcorps refuses to sell to Morris (i.e. we don't know if it is because Morris' previous offers were too low).
How do you pick between which of these two assumptions is more reasonable?
Had a similar thought process, but then saw the direction the choices were pointing towards and what is our task for this question type. Our task is to make it more LIKELY that Morris could become a majority shareholder, not guarantee it. E indicated that Azedcorp will sell newspaper holdings. Any indication of selling makes it more likely that The Daily shares fall into this group. In contrast I felt that B gave no indication at all as to what is likely/ the direction this transaction will go. Azedcorp could or could not sell the shares for more money. And even if they were tempted to sell, the stimulus indicates that Morris would acquire the shares soon, we do not know how fast this transaction can take and that is another assumption we have to make. Furthermore, maybe they were steadfast not to share because of some other reason besides money, maybe they don't like Morris. If they are forced to sell like E says, it is more reasonable to believe any other reservations would have to be put aside. Thus, it is more reasonable to think that the Daily is included in the shares and that because of this Morris will LIKELY become majority shareholder. E just removes one of the obstacles to her obtaining a majority.
All of this to say, some choices can and will require assumption but you should pick the one with the least amount. Let me know if that helps/need further clarification.
I am thinking between B and E. I think E denies the premise. Isn't it? Most right choice does not deny the premise. isn't it??? Am I wrong again??? so sad :(
It does not deny the premise. The corporation owning a majority of the shares and refusing to sell does not necessitate that they are not going bankrupt. It's okay!!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
86 comments
I seem to be doing fine with levels 1-3 difficulty, but once we get to 4 and 5 I am missing them!
wth are these questions, like i'll get two or three wrong, then one or two right, then it repeats over and over again, drives me insane ngl.
I am ashamed to admit this, but out of all the questions I've done in this lesson, this is the only one I have gotten correct .... little progress is better than no progress I guess.
What a perfect example of an answer choice which seems so obviously correct that you're hesitant to choose it solely because of this reason and end up wasting valuable time on double and triple confirming whether other answer choices are incorrect. LSAT test makers are some sneaky mfs
yayaya! got it right :)
E seemed too obvious that I was scared to pick it because I thought it was a bait and I'm tired of being a dumb, smelly fish.
@cwferrari same i said it was too easy of an answer so i was like upset cause the answer is plausable
I spent 5 mins on this question & was so proud to get it right and then I saw it was difficulty level 2...
I didn't choose E because I thought it undermined the premise in the stimulus, just as I thought (B) was undermining Azedcorp's steadfast refusal to sell. :/
(D) felt like the right choice because I assumed Morris could buy more shares off others other than Azedcorp but I guess that was too much of a stretch
When I did the BR though, I reminded myself that the ACs had to be TRUE. If it's true that Azedcorp "will probably soon FORCE the sale of its newspaper holdings," I guess the (E) is correct...
Honestly though, if it wasn't for the "suggest for BR" sign, I would have still chosen (D). With (E), I thought it was a bit unclear because of the word "probably," and "newspaper holdings," (the lack of "all" holdings? idk) and the idea that they might sell to another person/company not Morris.
Ok the premise does state that Azedcorp's ownership is "the only obstacle". eye roll
This question makes no sense. If E is correct and says the company is heading for bankruptcy and will be forced to sell why would it "steadfastly refuse" to sell. If they were going under wouldn't they want to sell in the first place
@KathyTyler$ Because sometimes people do dumb things out of principle, or any reason for that matter. Reasoning aside, they're refusing to sell. You're not buying the shares unless its out of their control, which is what E says.
@KathyTyler$ It helps to assume the ONLY world that exists is the one being described in the stim.
We must assume (even if it doesn't make sense) that both things are true at once (Azedcorp refuses to sell AND Azedcorp is going bankrupt) even if that doesn't make sense you must accept those things as true (because that's what the stim says and that's what the question stem "if true" forces you to do)
All we know is Azedcorp refuses to sell and Morris wants to buy and the analyst predicts Morris will soon be successful.
A) Azedcorp does not own shares of any newspaper other than The Daily.
B)Morris has recently offered Azedcorp much more for its shares of The Daily than Azedcorp paid for them.
C) No one other than Morris has expressed any interest in purchasing a majority of The Daily's shares.
D) Morris already owns more shares of The Daily than anyone except Azedcorp.
E) Azedcorp is financially so weak that bankruptcy will probably soon force the sale of its newspaper holdings.
#feedback why was the blind review portion removed from these drills from the OG version? I feel like I take more time during these drills anyway, but just feel like it gives me an extra moment to decide whether my answer is correct or not.
#help
Why could it not be that while Azedcorp owns a majority of shares that the total percentage owned is still under 50%? What if Azedcorp owns 40%, Morris owns 39% and Bob owns 21%? This makes Azedcorp the current majority owner. But then if Morris buys Bob's shares she will own 60% becoming the majority owner. Why was it assumed that to be a the majority holder you had to currently own more than 50%?
If you go back to the grammar lesson majority is synonymous with most which is 51% of the shares or more up to 99%, the question does not state owns more than any other shareholder it says owns a majority of all shares so it must be within that range
Is it correct that for a lot of these weaken/strengthen questions we can find an alternative hypothesis (like in RRE)? I find that in a lot of these I just looked for an alternative hypothesis/something that would disprove for the weaken questions. However is this the correct approach?
Ever since we switched to the assumption framework, this has been the most frustrating module.
I've only gotten one of these questions correct. Feeling stuck.
You got this! Just go over the questions again like 2-3 days later and I promise it comes back to you in ways you could not imagine.
How is E stronger than B? How could we know which is more likely to work?
I think its because E shows they are going to have to sell, while B is just saying they could consider selling.
oh damn
I was so confident about B...
real.
B still feels like the better answer. In E, just because they most likely will be forced to sell doesn't mean those shares are going to Morris. If a company is going bankrupt, then it should be fair to assume it will sell to anyone who wants the shares because they are going under. You know, "whatever just take them I'm done."
But B is saying Morris is directly offering Azedcorp more money than what they paid. A corporation is a corporation, it wants to make a profit no matter how small, and here they get more than what they paid. So if they accept the deal, those shares go directly to Morris, which in turn makes her majority owner. Why is B not correct????
"The only obstacle" safeguards all assumptions in regard to finance, ability to buy, etc. So when E rolls around and kills the only obstacle in Morris becoming majority owner, it supports the conclusion.
I agree, E forces us to assume that just because they going bankrupt that Morris also has the money to purchase the shares and will be the new majority. It requires way too many further assumptions of the industry prediction that "Morris will be the majority owner of the Daily"
B is too vague tho, if Azedcorp bought shares 20 years ago, of course Morris would be offering more money than they paid for the shares, so It kind of makes no sense that if they didn't sell to Morris at a profit, they then aren't selling it either way.
I would disagree. The stimulus already told you that Azedcorp does not want to sell. If she offered them more money than before, what assumption is required for that answer choice to even be close to strengthening the analysis that the industry experts made? That they will change their minds about not selling. If you take Azedcorp out like E does, then guess what the only obstacle is gone and she's able to take the majority of the shares.
B is less correct because it does not strongly overcome the premise that states "
AmazonI mean Azedcorp is steadfastly not selling." It is almost precluded by the stim. E is more correct because if they are FORCED to sell by an outside factor that means that the the main obstacle for Moris is removed, allowing for the planned takeover.Couldn't B also be wrong because it says that Morris is paying much more than they paid for, but couldn't their shares be valued higher than what they initially paid for them?
I had originally chosen B, but this reason above is what made me wonder if it was the right answer.
Also, does E make a good reasoning basis that "AC with predictions is okay if it is supporting a prediction"? The "will probably soon" language is why I didn't choose it to begin with because it seemed weak.
This one is very frustrating. How is E correct if it says "probably"? That doesn't mean they are guaranteed to sell or even sell to Carol.
What is a "majority" exactly: does it mean you own the largest piece of the pie or does it mean you own a larger piece than everyone else? There's a difference. You could have comparatively more shares than everyone else, but if everyone else's shares were combined under one person, that person would suddenly have the most shares.
The majority means over 50% or over half.
Think of Majority like the word Most. They both have to mean over half.
I think you are confusing it with the word Many (More than 1), which would have made you want to pick D. (My assumption)
I chose D. My thinking behind that was that if Azedcorp owns 30% Carol owns 29% and the other for 40% is split between Rob and Sally. Wouldn't Azedcorp still own a majority of the shares and maybe Carol could by half of Rob's shares.
Azedcorp owns more than 50%. That is by definition what a majority means. Choice D attempts to contradict a stated premise, which is almost never what the LSAT is looking for.
Why is it okay to assume that for E, even if Azedcorp is forced to sell, they WILL sell to Morris? What is the boundary of assumptions made, especially if B is wrong for arguable assumptions as well?
Here, the assumptions for B vs. E can be explained by which are more reasonable or likely to occur. As for these questions the choices should be considered true, we can assume that (E) the selling of their shares is a likely possibility. In fact, E tells us that selling is more likely, thus offering a sense of direction. Regardless, of whether they sell, the possibility that they will sell makes it more likely that Morris will soon be the majority shareholder (although it is important to note that even if they sell it does not mean Morris will obtain these shares. But our job is not to prove Morris will be majority shareholder but rather prove it's LIKELY she could become. Bankruptcy and selling is the removal of one obstacle). In contrast, B gives us no indication at all what is possible - it leaves it open whether a larger amount of money can or cannot convince Azedcorp to sell. Moreover, we do not know how soon they will accept any offer and the consultant predicted that "soon."
I was between B. and E. but I could not being myself to choose E. because I thought E. was baiting me to make an assumption. E says, "Azedcorp is financially so weak that bankruptcy will probably soon force the sale of its newspaper holdings."
I was trying to be aware of sets/the size of sets, so I thought E. was baiting me to assume that if Azedcorps were to sell its newspaper holdings due to bankrupcy, it would necessarily sell its The Daily holdings. I was trying to be aware that Azedcorp could have many other newspaper holdings, and the sale of its newspaper holdings =/= the sale of all of its newspaper holdings =/= the sale of The Daily. So I thought E. was trying to bait me into making some unreasonable assumptions, but I guess I overthought and ended up being unreasonable about what is unreasonable?
To make E. work, you have to assume that bankruptcy will force Azedcorp to sell The Daily. To make B. work, you have to assume that Morris paying more will make Azedcorp sell. However, we don't know what other holdings Azedcorp has (and therefore what else it can sell to get out of bankruptcy without selling The Daily) and we also don't know why Azedcorps refuses to sell to Morris (i.e. we don't know if it is because Morris' previous offers were too low).
How do you pick between which of these two assumptions is more reasonable?
#help
I had the exact same thought process ://
Had a similar thought process, but then saw the direction the choices were pointing towards and what is our task for this question type. Our task is to make it more LIKELY that Morris could become a majority shareholder, not guarantee it. E indicated that Azedcorp will sell newspaper holdings. Any indication of selling makes it more likely that The Daily shares fall into this group. In contrast I felt that B gave no indication at all as to what is likely/ the direction this transaction will go. Azedcorp could or could not sell the shares for more money. And even if they were tempted to sell, the stimulus indicates that Morris would acquire the shares soon, we do not know how fast this transaction can take and that is another assumption we have to make. Furthermore, maybe they were steadfast not to share because of some other reason besides money, maybe they don't like Morris. If they are forced to sell like E says, it is more reasonable to believe any other reservations would have to be put aside. Thus, it is more reasonable to think that the Daily is included in the shares and that because of this Morris will LIKELY become majority shareholder. E just removes one of the obstacles to her obtaining a majority.
All of this to say, some choices can and will require assumption but you should pick the one with the least amount. Let me know if that helps/need further clarification.
LOCK ME IN 2/5 DIFFICULTY!!!
¯(ᵕ—ᴗ—)/¯
I selected E, but thought it was wayyyy to obvious of an answer. LSAT writers are in my head!
I am thinking between B and E. I think E denies the premise. Isn't it? Most right choice does not deny the premise. isn't it??? Am I wrong again??? so sad :(
It does not deny the premise. The corporation owning a majority of the shares and refusing to sell does not necessitate that they are not going bankrupt. It's okay!!