PT11.S2.Q24 #Help

edited July 2021 in Logical Reasoning 20 karma

I understand why AC (A) is the correct answer because it is the best suited. However, is it really an assumption the argument depends on because if you utilise JY's negation method, you can get this:

Say, there is a political debt she owes to somebody longer than Lee & it can be as suitably repaid by appointing them to the Head of the Arts Commission, couldn't it be the case at the exact same time another job became vacant that was better suited to this unnamed individual (the individual Mayor Drabble had a longer standing political debt to). Therefore, allowing Lee to be appointed to the Head of the Arts Commission and fulfilling her longer standing political debt as soon as possible.

I am not sure if the slight flaw in the logic is due to it being an older LSAT so not as logically rigorous or I am missing something?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.



  • elevator_musicelevator_music Core Member
    151 karma

    Ok I kind of see where you are going with this but I think in your scenario if a "better suited job" opens up (as you say) the current job of arts commissioner would no longer be "suited" to this other individual because they actually have a preference for this other job.

    And even if you grant yourself that there is a small logical inconsistency within the answer choice, the other question you should ask yourself is: what other answer choice comes even close to A?

  • 20 karma

    I completely understand why A was the right choice, I was just asking if other people agreed there was a logical inconsistency.

Sign In or Register to comment.