  |
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 2 posts ] |
|
| Author |
Message |
|
joyce.hau
|
Post subject: Q19  Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 8:07 am |
|
Thanks Received: 0
Posts: 13
Joined: May 20th, 2010
|
This is a question about 19. I saw your earlier explanation for why it has to be B, but I'm still unconvinced.
If I must appear with M, we have to go with the scenario where P serves on every committee:
P _ _ / P _ _ / P _ _
I get that M doesn't have to be the one that serves on 2 committees (that was a crucial mistake I'd made first time around), but for the answer to be true (I serves on more than one committee), wouldn't that mean that M has to be on more than one?
So this would mean:
P M I / P M I / P _ _
leaving not enough room for F, G, and H. How can I serve on more than one committee then??
Thanks for your help!!
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
mshermn
|
Post subject: Re: PT 46, S4, G4 - A reporter is trying to uncover the workings Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:54 pm |
|
 |
| LSAT Geek |
 |
Thanks Received: 451
Posts: 1647
Joined: October 07th, 2009
|
Good question!
The conditional relationship implied in the question stem is that
Irving serves on every subcommittee on which Magnus serves.
does that mean that
Magnus serves on every subcommittee on which Irving serves?
No, it doesn't.
So, while we know
M --> I, we cannot say I --> M
Which is why the following is possible
P M I / P I _ / P _ _
Irving does not have to be accompanied by Magnus, though Magnos does have to be accompanied by Irving.. I hope this helps, and feel free to let me know if you want me to spend more time on this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 2 posts ] |
|
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests |
| |
|
|
Connect with Manhattan LSAT
