Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.5K All Categories
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 191 Webinars
- 11 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 112 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 31 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 641 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic
PT9.S4.Q13 - This summer, Jennifer, who has worked #help I can't tell the difference between A and C
kvkim0122
Member
(PT9 S4- #13)
J: worked 3 years and will vacation 4 weeks this year
Everyone who worked 1-4 years entitled to 3 week vacation
Apply half of unused vacation to next year.
So it makes sense to me that J had two weeks left over from last year so she got half of that this year
(A) J did not use two weeks in which she was entitled to
(C) J only used one week in which she was entitled to
What is the difference between the two and how can I distinguish them?
Comments
I suppose just because J didn't use two weeks doesn't necessarily mean she only used one. It's possible that she only used one week, but maybe she spent some amount of time between none and 1 week, or between 1 week and 2 weeks. Or maybe J didn't use any of her vacation time at all that year. We don't really know. All we know is that she didn't use 2 weeks.
On the other hand, (C) gives us something concrete. She used only 1 week, and that's it.
On an unrelated note, I have some gripes about this one. (Spoilers:)
I don't see why (A) is right. From where I'm standing, it's possible that J used two weeks last year, still had two left over, and transferred half to this year.
Can anyone tell me what's wrong with my thinking here? Why can't this happen?
(xxxxxxx)
(xxxxxxx)
(vvvvvvv) or (xxxxxxx)
y1
(xxxxxxx)
(xxxxxxx)
(vvvvvvv)
(vvvvvvv)
y2
(vvvvvvv)
(vvvvvvv)
(vvvvvvv)
(vvvvvvv)
y3
I may be wrong, so just let me know if you see an issue with my reasoning, but here are my thoughts:
Answer choice A is correct because it absolutely has to be true that J did not use two weeks of vacation time that she was entitled to last year. That's the only way she can have an extra week this year. It is even possible that she did not use any of her vacation time last year, making her eligible for 1.5 extra weeks this year, but only applied for 1 of those weeks this year (totaling the four weeks of vacations she's taking). But we know for certain that she didn't use two weeks.
Conversely, answer choice C is wrong because it does not have to be true that J used one week of her vacation time last year. As I mentioned in my explanation for answer choice A, she very well could've abstained from using all three of her weeks in the previous year. Or maybe she only used a few days. We don't know the exact amount of vacation time she took last year, we just know she had to have abstained from using at least two weeks.
I hope this helps!
Apologies, I hadn't refreshed my page before posting so I didn't see the comments from @dexterity. It does seem that answer choice A rests on the assumption that you can't "bank" extra weeks each year. I hadn't considered that so I'm not sure if I'm missing something. Perhaps there is an explanation, though.
@"Matt Sorr" Yeah, if we assume J only had 3 available vacation weeks the previous year, then (A) is definitely correct. Like you said, had she used 2 of them, she couldn't possibly have an extra week this year. My issue is that we have no reason to make that assumption. Why can't she have 4? Or 4.5?
@dexterity,
I'm not quite sure I'm following. AC A is saying that Jennifer at a minimum banked two weeks of vacation from last year to be able to earn the extra week she needed for her four week vacation with her family. It's possible she banked more time, but that doesn't have to be true the way AC A does. Does that make sense? Did I understand correctly what you're saying?
edit: She could have 4 or 4.5, those CBT, but what MBT is that she have 2.
Let me clarify, @claremont.
I agree 100% that J would have to have banked at least two weeks of vacation from last year to be able to earn the extra week she needed for her four-week vacation with her family this year. What I'm saying is, she could have done that while STILL using two of the vacation weeks she was entitled to for that year.
Do we know how much available vacation time J had last year? Sure, it could have been 3 weeks, but it could also have been 4 (or slightly more.) It depends on how much vacation time J used & banked on the year BEFORE last. We know NOTHING about this. So, it's possible J banked enough vacation time on the year BEFORE last to add an extra week onto her vacation time for LAST year, bringing it up to 4 weeks, as I illustrated above.
If this was the case, J could have used 2 of her available vacation weeks for LAST year while STILL having enough vacation time left over to bank to THIS year so she could spend her 4-week vacation with her family. So, (A) need not be true.
Let me know if that makes sense. If not, I'd be happy to clarify further.
@dexterity,
I think you may be misinterpreting AC A. It isn't saying that Jennifer didn't take two weeks of vacation the year prior. It's basically saying that she saved two weeks of vacation. To say that Jennifer took a two week vacation last year and banked two weeks is consistent with AC A.
@claremont,
Ah. Now that I think about it, you're absolutely right. You're saying that (A) doesn't say that Jennifer didn't USE two weeks, but rather that she had at least two weeks that were UNUSED. I guess that'd be consistent with my illustration, too. Thanks for clarifying. And here I was thinking I had actually outwitted the test makers.
This goddamn test, man.