PT7.S4.Q19 - it takes 365.25 days

LSATcantwinLSATcantwin Alum Member Sage ⭐
edited June 2017 in Logical Reasoning 13286 karma

Okay so this one I really don't understand. The question talks about changing days of the year so that the days no longer shift.

It states: Many scheduling problems could be avoided if the last day of each year, and an additional day every 4th year belonged to no week.

The stem says: The proposal above, once put into effect, would be most likely to result in continued scheduling conflicts for which one of the following groups?

The correct answer is B.) Employed people whose strict religious observations require that they refrain from working every 7th day.

What....how would they have a continued scheduled problem? Every 7th day they don't work. What's the issue here? Do I assume that work would say "Hey, you don't get to take that 7th day off because of your religion?" I feel like it requires me to assume things that it shouldn't. Or maybe I am missing the idea completely....

Comments

  • inactiveinactive Alum Member
    12637 karma

    (In case it helps, there's another thread from last year on this question: https://7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/7542)

  • LSATcantwinLSATcantwin Alum Member Sage ⭐
    13286 karma

    @"Dillon A. Wright" said:
    (In case it helps, there's another thread from last year on this question: https://7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/7542)

    It helped a little. Still doesn't stop them from taking religious days off every 7th day though. I can see why this could be right, but doesn't it still rely on assumptions?

    I have to assume that this new thing is a continued scheduling conflict to work. This one makes me feel uneasy and not very confident with the answer choice. Never found a question where I can see the solution and still say "yeah but..." most of the time the test just makes me eat my words.

  • Accounts PlayableAccounts Playable Live Sage ⭐
    3107 karma

    This is one of my favorite LSAT questions because it requires you to really think about the practicality of a plan like this. The new calendar would standardize the days of annual events and stuff.

    Answer A: No problem here. Dec 31 would fall in the non-week. Sure, it'd be in that weird period, but there wouldn't be a scheduling conflict since this would always be the case. This is an annualized event, so this is fine with the new calendar.

    Answer B: This is a problem. Currently, every 7th day is a Sunday (which falls on the weekend, so not a workday). But, if the proposed new calendar came into effect, think about the burden on the employers. This is a weekly event that affects every week of the year. Say that the first year the calendar starts, every 7th day is a Saturday. No problem. But, the next year will be a Friday. Practically speaking, employers would lose about 4 work days each month! This is most likely going to result in continued scheduling conflicts.

    Answer C: This isn't an issue and can be easily worked around. As long as the gross number of days meets the requirement, who cares when the days occur throughout the year?

    Answer D: This is accounted for and the entire point of the new calendar. The new calendar standardizes which days of the week the holidays fall on.

    Answer E: This isn't an issue. Why would planning be affected as long as the new calendar is standardized and widely used?

  • LSATcantwinLSATcantwin Alum Member Sage ⭐
    13286 karma

    @"Accounts Playable" said:
    This is one of my favorite LSAT questions because it requires you to really think about the practicality of a plan like this. The new calendar would standardize the days of annual events and stuff.

    Answer A: No problem here. Dec 31 would fall in the non-week. Sure, it'd be in that weird period, but there wouldn't be a scheduling conflict since this would always be the case. This is an annualized event, so this is fine with the new calendar.

    Answer B: This is a problem. Currently, every 7th day is a Sunday (which falls on the weekend, so not a workday). But, if the proposed new calendar came into effect, think about the burden on the employers. This is a weekly event that affects every week of the year. Say that the first year the calendar starts, every 7th day is a Saturday. No problem. But, the next year will be a Friday. Practically speaking, employers would lose about 4 work days each month! This is most likely going to result in continued scheduling conflicts.

    Answer C: This isn't an issue and can be easily worked around. As long as the gross number of days meets the requirement, who cares when the days occur throughout the year?

    Answer D: This is accounted for and the entire point of the new calendar. The new calendar standardizes which days of the week the holidays fall on.

    Answer E: This isn't an issue. Why would planning be affected as long as the new calendar is standardized and widely used?

    Again I see this. But we would know exactly what days the 7th day would fall on years in advance. So why is that a continued scheduling conflict? You know exactly which day it falls on every year without fail? so one year of conflict =/= continued conflict, or does it?

  • Accounts PlayableAccounts Playable Live Sage ⭐
    edited June 2017 3107 karma

    But imagine a workforce that has multiple religions in it. Each taking 7 days off. However, say that religion A starts the cycle on a Sunday while religion B on a Saturday. From an employer standpoint, this is a nightmare for every year that the days don't fall on a natural weekend. Losing 4 accounting days a month would be a huge deal for commerce and productivity. I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption to say that this would create a conflict with your average employer.

    Simply knowing what each 7th day is one thing, but creating a conflict is something else.

  • LSATcantwinLSATcantwin Alum Member Sage ⭐
    13286 karma

    This question is what the term diabolical was invented for.

  • shanedridershanedrider Alum Member
    156 karma

    This question is not only a curve breaker, it's a nuclear bomb where only the strongest scores survive the impact. Yikes.

  • BirdLaw818BirdLaw818 Free Trial Member
    edited June 2017 553 karma

    You don't have to make a strict MUST BE TRUE kind of answer here.

    Okay, imagine taking the last day out of every year...and another day every 4 years (which is really irrelevant). Does that assure that there r no scheduling conflicts? Of course not.

    assuming that EVERYONE only has schedule conflicts/problems on the last day of the year or as a result of not removing that day, then we can say that it helps everyone out.

    BUT, what if my religion makes it so I can't go in every Tuesday? Does removing a day from December really make that less of a problem? No.

    It's essentially asking you to treat the question stem in a similar fashion like must be true, where the answer choices are showing that it's definitely NOT always true.

Sign In or Register to comment.