#25 - The law of the city of Weston regarding contributions

[afinelli]

On this question - I am confused how C can be correct. I chose A - which seems to be the only thing we can know to be true. The correct answer, C, says that no contributions need to be registered - how do we know that? My thought was that there could be other requirements for resident contributions that we don't know about so we can't know that no contributions needed to be registered. Seems like too far of a jump for a MBT question.
Thanks for any help!

[Steve Stein]

They've made this one deliberately confusing, but, in less convoluted terms, which contributions have to be registered? First, they have to be over $100. Second, they have to be from a total outsider--someone who doesn't live in the city now, and has never lived in the city.

All of Brimley's contributers are insiders--they either live in the city now, or they've lived there previously. Since none of these contributors are total outsiders, none of their contributions needed to be registered.

[afinelli]

Thanks, Steve.

[mkuo]

Hi all,

In this must-be-true question there's an action that will occur if all conditions are met:

Law X:
Contributions must be registered if they are:
1. in excess of $100
2. made by nonresidents
3. not a former resident

Since it's not "or" in the stem... all 3 must be met for registration to happen.

And question stem fact:
Brimley's campaign clearly complied with this law; contributions accepted only from residents and former residents.

In my understanding, if any one of the 3 conditions is not met, then contributions need not to be registered.

Correct answer (C): No contributions to Brimley needed to be registered.

But then, how do I know that? Nothing was said about the contributions made by a resident or a former resident. Yes, Brimley complied with Law X. But I can't say "no registration needed" because I don't know anything else since the question stem did not state anything about that.

And I believe this reasoning backs up that (E) is incorrect: we don't know if contributions made to Brimley need to be registered according because no laws were stated for them, hence we CANNOT say "he didn't register ANY". (E) is too extreme for the little information we have from the stem.
(C) is slightly better than (E) because Brimley probably could register if he likes, even if he doesn't need to.

To show that I am NOT overthinking this, let me provide an example:

Say there's a new law that people residing in Vancouver now need to pay a fee to the city hall. You don't live in Vancouver, do you need to pay?
The answer should be "don't know". Because nothing is given explicitly about non-residents of Vancouver.

That was an example of a book on logic that I read...

I guess what I'm trying to say is, in this "must-be-true" question, if there explicitly stated that Law X is the only one law regarding contributions, then I understand (C) is correct.
Additionally, if this was an "assumption" question, then (C) would make sense without having to modify the stem. Because the connection between Brimley complied with Law X and Brimley's contributions are only from residents/former residents, (C) is necessary. Again this is limited to Law X only, since there is no need to worry about other unstated laws (if any) if this was an "assumption"....

... am I overthinking?

Thanks in advance for reading...

[Steve Stein]

The test makers have worded this one in a deliberately confusing manner, but, in less convoluted terms, which contributions have to be registered? First, they have to be over $100. Second, they have to be from a total outsider--someone who doesn't live in the city now, and has never lived in the city.

All of Brimley's contributors are insiders--they either live in the city now, or they've lived there previously. Since none of Brimley's contributors are total outsiders, none of their contributions needed to be registered; this leads to correct answer choice C.

You are right about the fact that Brimley complied with Law X--but Law X, in this case, is described as "The law of the city of Weston regarding contributions..." The author says that Brimley complied with this law, and the question specifies that all of the statements in the stimulus are true.

I hope that's helpful, let me know--thanks!

~Steve

[mkuo]

Thanks Steve! That puts it into perspective for me.

[jgabalski]

I could use some additional clarification on this question. Why is answer choice A wrong? I selected this as my answer. When doing this question, I actually crossed out both answer choices C and E, because I thought that they were describing the same thing and therefore fell under the Uniqueness of Answer choice rule. Is choice E actually referencing "the members" of Brimley's campaign-staff/aids/etc? Thank you for anything you can provide.

[Kristina Moen]

Hi jg,

"All contributions to these campaigns in excess of $100 made by nonresidents of Weston who are not former residents of Weston must be registered with the city council." There are three conditions, that if met, means you have to register:
1) contribution in excess of $100
2) current non resident
3) not a former resident

Let's say Sarah is current resident of Weston and donated $500. Does she have to register? No, not according to this rule. Let's say John lives in Galveston now, donated $101, and never lived in Weston. Does he have to register? Yes. Let's say Susan lives in Galveston, donated $500, but she used to live in Weston. Does she have to register? NO. That's the issue with answer choice (A). A nonresident who donated more than $100 COULD have contributed to Brimley's campaign, as long as that nonresident used to live in Weston.

When you see two answer choices that look similar, look again at the wording!

"No contributions to Brimley's campaign needed to be registered with the city council" vs "Brimley's campaign did not register any contributions with the city council." Think about the difference between these statements: "I did not need to eat that cake" vs "I did not eat that cake."

We don't know if Brimley's campaign registered or did not register contributions with the city council. What we do know from the stimulus is that Brimley's campaign "accepted contributions only from residents and former residents of Weston." And from the first rule in the stimulus, residents and former residents do not have to register with city council.

[BostonLawGuy]

I would like some clarification on this question so I am more likely to recognize the correct answer choice on test day.

The stated law gives us aSUFFICIENT condition which makes registering necessary.

Must it be true that if the politician did not meet the SUFFICIENT condition then the necessary condition (registering) must be true? This seems like a mistaken negation to me.

Just because he didn't meet the sufficient condition does not mean that they didn't have to register. Might they be required to register for other reasons?

Since this is a must be true, I didn't see how answer choice "C" is correct. Please help.

[LSAT2018]

I would also like to know the response to what the above user has posted. The conditional logic here is
Contributions by Nonresidents who are not Formal Residents (Excess of $100)→ Register

Further information provides that contributions were only from residents and formal residents, which does not meet the sufficient condition above. So given that the sufficient condition is negated, the necessary condition is negated, answer (C) gives us a Mistaken Negation. (Otherwise, is this a biconditional?)