#10 - Local, Must Be True, Except

[Dave Killoran]

Complete Question Explanation
(The complete setup for this game can be found here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=6424)

The correct answer choice is (B)

If everyone that is interviewed is hired, then F must be hired because F is always interviewed. Additionally, the question stem states that L is hired, meaning that L must have been interviewed:

O97_Game_#2_#10_diagram 1.png

From the fourth rule, when F is hired then K is interviewed, and so K must be hired as well. From the fifth rule, when K is hired then M is interviewed, so M must be hired too:

O97_Game_#2_#10_diagram 2.png

Finally, because M is hired and because the question states that L is hired (meaning L is interviewed), then from the last rule O is hired:

O97_Game_#2_#10_diagram 3.png

Thus, F, K, M, and O are all hired, which eliminates answer choices (A), (C), (D), and (E) from consideration. Answer choice (B) is therefore the correct answer choice.

[thinkgreen]

I'm having trouble understanding what this question stem is asking. Obviously Lee being hired is integral to finding the correct answer, I'm just a little lost as to where to start with this one.

[Luke Haqq]

Hi thinkgreen!

This question asks for something close to language of the original rules in the game. The game states, "Only applicants who are interviewed will be hired." In other words:

H I

However, question #10 asks --"If every applicant that is interviewed is hired..." and then asks us to suppose L is hired. Or:

I H

From that lower diagram, the first place I'd recommend to start is the variable "F." This is because the game rules include one that is "F is interviewed." Given the parameters of question #10, we know that because F is interviewed, F is hired. We could therefore eliminate answer (A).

To eliminate the other answers, you need these two rules from the game:

• Fu is not hired, unless Kowalski is interviewed.
  Kowalski is not hired, unless Mayer is interviewed.

In cases where you see conditional reasoning using the word "unless," a rule of thumb to apply when is (1) whatever clause the word unless modifies becomes the necessary condition, (2) the other clause is negated and becomes the sufficient condition. Thus those two statements should be diagramed as:

• F(hired) K(interviewed)
  K(hired) M(interviewed)

Since we've already determined that F is hired, we therefore know from these rules that K is interviewed and hired; and if K is hired, we know that M is interviewed and hired. Therefore we can eliminate answers (C) and (D).

Lastly, we have the rule "If Mayer is hired, and Lee is interviewed, Ordoveza is hired." In other words--

M(h) & L(i) O(h)

And we know from the previous inferences, and from the question stem, that M is hired, and L is hired--and thus necessarily interviewed--in which case we know O is hired. That eliminates (E), leaving you with (B) as the correct answer: If every applicant that is interviewed is hired, and if Lee is hired, then it is not necessarily the case that J is interviewed.

Hope that helps!