PrepTest 124, Section 3, Question 25
Principle: Meetings should be kept short, addressing only(47 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(10 more words not shown)
- AThe only issues(23 more words not shown)
- BIf Terry makes(12 more words not shown)
- CNo issue relevant(13 more words not shown)
- DIf Terry attends(22 more words not shown)
- EThe majority of(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
If nothing at the meeting is relevant to Terry, why require Terry to sit through it?
That's the second part of the principle. The first part controls the agenda: keep the meeting short and discuss only issues relevant to a majority of those attending. Those are separate restrictions—one about what the meeting should cover, the other about whom it should require to attend.
For this task, we apply the stated policy. We don't need to debate whether meetings might have other benefits, such as keeping a team connected. The question asks which fact best justifies the application that Terry should not be required to attend the two o'clock meeting.
What we’re looking for
My prediction is that none of the issues to be discussed are relevant to Terry. That would activate the attendance rule directly.
Working the answers
- A
Being able to present on an issue isn't the same as having an interest in an issue. Terry could need to hear someone else's presentation even if Terry has nothing suitable to present. A also concerns what is relevant to potential attendees, whereas we need to establish that none of the meeting's issues are relevant to Terry. It doesn't give us that.
- B
Terry could attend without giving a presentation. Even if a presentation by Terry would make the meeting too long, that wouldn't establish that attendance itself should be optional. This answer addresses a possible role at the meeting, not whether anything on the agenda matters to Terry.
- CCorrect
Follow the two rules together. The agenda should include only issues relevant to a majority. C says no issue relevant to Terry could fit that description. So none of Terry's relevant issues belongs on the agenda under the stated principle.
Now apply the attendance rule: if none of the issues to be addressed is relevant to Terry, Terry should not be required to attend. C gets us to the predicted condition indirectly. It doesn't say Terry is forbidden to attend or that the whole meeting must be canceled.
- D
A changed set of issues isn't necessarily an irrelevant set for Terry. Some issues could matter both to Terry and to the majority with Terry present. D doesn't establish that nothing on the agenda is relevant to Terry, so it doesn't activate the exemption.
- E
Most irrelevant issues isn't the same as no relevant issues. Imagine five agenda items, four irrelevant to Terry and one directly relevant. E would be true, but the stated condition for exempting Terry would not be met. The policy might still allow Terry to attend voluntarily or provide another reason for an exemption, but E doesn't justify this application through the rule given.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.