PT24.S2.Q11- Not surprisingly, there are no

Comments

• 1 Like

  jkk671 Member

  August 2021 12 karma

  So one way to look at it is to ignore the other two some statements (Brilliant --> Some Prof, Brilliant --> Some Vote). The conditional circled above negates what is necessary for Prof --> 18+ and Vote --> 18+

  So if we think about it that way we would have to admit that some of the people who are brilliant are not Professors and Cant legally vote since some of the people that are brilliant are younger than 18 and if you are younger than 18 you can't be a professor or legally vote.

  Hope that helps!
• 1 Like

  minnow789 Member

  August 2021 8 karma

  (A) says that no professors are 18 yrs old. However, the chain shows us that being a professor necessitates that you are 18 or older - so it is possible there is a prof who is exactly 18.

  (B) says that the entirety of the group of brilliant people must belong to either the subset professors, legal voters, or people under 18. But while there is a some arrow connecting brilliant people to each of these three groups, that does not mean that this constitutes the ENTIRE group of brilliant people - there may be another 'some' arrow. This may not be super clear from the chain, but it is clear based on the wording of the stimulus.

  (C) says that some legal voters are not professors. But as we don't have a direct connection between these two groups, we can't say that for sure. Each of these two groups belongs to the larger group of 'brilliant people', and each also necessitates that its members are 18 or older. We would be able to select this choice if the stimulus said, for example, that if you were a professor, you had a PhD, and some legal voters did not have a PhD. Well, then it's clear that some legal voters are not professors because they do not satisfy the necessary. The stimulus doesn't provide us with any such information, so we can't say that this must be true.

  (D) says that some professors are neither legal voters nor brilliant people. This is wrong for the same reason (C) is wrong - we just don't have the information indicating otherwise. Based on the chain alone, and recognizing that 'some' logically includes 'all', it's possible that every single member of the group 'professors' falls under the larger groups 'brilliant people' AND 'legal voters'. If this doesn't make sense, it might help to draw the connections in the form of shapes, like circles. The 'brilliant people' circle has some sort of overlap with the 'professors' and 'legal voters' circles. It is possible that the 'brilliant people' circle is located entirely within a larger 'legal voters' circle, and that the 'legal voters' circle itself is entirely contained within the giant 'brilliant people' circle.

  (E) states that some brilliant people are neither professors nor legal voters. Look at the chain - SOME brilliant people must be under the age of 18, but if someone is a professor or a legal voter, they must be 18 and over. This group of brilliant people under 18 fails the necessary condition, so we negate the sufficient to find that they are neither professors nor legal voters. Therefore (E) is correct.