Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.2K All Categories
- 27.1K LSAT
- 16.5K General
- 5.1K Logical Reasoning
- 1.3K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 72 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 9 Scholarships
- 193 Test Center Reviews
- 2K Study Groups
- 108 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.4K Specific LSAT Dates
- 7 June 2024 LSAT
- 1 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 41 October 2023 LSAT
- 12 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 1 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.8K Not LSAT
- 3.9K Law School Admissions
- 11 Law School Explained
- 9 Forum Rules
- 580 Technical Problems
- 275 Off-topic
1 Like
PT11.S2.Q24 - Mayer Drabble
Burden.of.Floof
Member
Would someone be able to help me out with this one? I didn't trust the correct AC from the beginning because I thought it was too much of a sufficient assumption. I know something can be both sufficient and necessary but this question just really got me.
Thanks in advance!
Comments
Lee wants job
D owes Lee
D repays her debts ASAP
So she will appoint Lee
Assumptions: appointment will repay debt, debt to lee is the only debt or it is prioritized over any others
Answer A works... If D had an older debt that could be repaid with the appointment, Lee wouldn't get the job, since D repays debts asap. The appointment would go to the older debt.
Try negating the other answers to see what they don't work. Good strategy to check your work for NA questions.
@canihazJD Thanks! I always negate but it didn’t work out for me on this question. I think I de-emphasized/forgot about the repaying debts ASAP part... keeping that in mind A seems more obvious.
I like how super simple your translation is... that’s something I need to work on.