PrepTest 107, Section 1, Question 18
Some planning committee members—those representing the construction industry—have(25 more words not shown)
If the statements above are(10 more words not shown)
- ANo persons with(14 more words not shown)
- BNo person who(14 more words not shown)
- CSome persons with(12 more words not shown)
- DSome planning committee(12 more words not shown)
- ESome persons with(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Some committee members have a financial stake in the decisions. That might make us wonder about a conflict of interest, but the passage never tells us whether they behave improperly. Let's keep the facts separate from that possible concern.
We know there are construction-industry representatives on the committee with significant financial interests. We also know that nobody on the committee lives in the suburbs. Put those facts together: those financially interested committee members must live somewhere other than the suburbs.
Working in the suburbs is a separate fact. Many committee members do work there, but we don't know whether they are the same members who represent construction. Picture two groups within one committee. They might overlap completely, partly, or not at all. Nothing fixes that overlap.
What we’re looking for
For the must-be-true question, the safe prediction is that some financially interested people do not live in the suburbs. We can identify those people using their committee membership. We shouldn't turn that fact about a known group into a rule about everyone with a financial stake.
Working the answers
- A
Remove the double negative: this says everyone with a significant financial interest is in construction. We know some construction representatives have such interests, not that construction is the only industry with a stake. If five members of a twenty-person committee represent construction, one of the other fifteen could have a financial interest too.
- B
This applies the committee's residence rule to every financially interested person. What about a shop owner outside the committee who would gain customers from a planned development? That owner could live in the suburbs. We know where the committee members don't live, but that doesn't locate every person who might profit from its decisions.
- C
We don't know whether the financially interested members belong to the group working in the suburbs. The two groups could be entirely separate. They could also overlap, but an overlap being possible doesn't make it guaranteed.
- D
We cannot guarantee the opposite arrangement either. All the construction representatives might work in the suburbs. The passage rules out their living there, not their working there. Keep those two activities distinct.
- ECorrect
Some people on the committee have significant financial interests, and no person on the committee lives in the suburbs. Those particular people therefore have significant financial interests and do not live in the suburbs. E says 'some,' so it doesn't make the unsupported claim in B about every financially interested person.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.