#21 - Local

[Jon Denning]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (A).

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):


This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

C4E2EE1F-3BFF-4ED0-9159-010A005FF113 13.png

[Adam354]

5___S___()___()____()
10__V__X___X___()

A 10 year ONLY pair that did not include S or V (symbolized by X) would leave no room for two additional corporations to have both bonds.

Answer A is the only one that includes S or V.

[Beth Hayden]

Hi Adam,

That's right! We already know that H and L can't be together, which means that they can only offer one kind of bond. For this question, the same must be true for S and V. So by process of elimination, the duplicate corporations are R and G. That alone is actually good enough to answer this question!

But for good measure, there's one rule you may be leaving out here: V(5) S(5 & 10)

Because of this rule, V cannot be on 5. That means that V must be on 10 and S must be on 5 (as you can see in Jon's diagram above).

Hope that helps!
Beth

[muhammadtheahmed]

I really hope someone can help me here. I got this question right because all other options contained G and R which is both. The only question that has me stumped is how could L be on 10. My reasoning is that the contrapositive of L10 -> R10 came to be R5 -> L5 (I think). Given this, if R is common amongst both 5 and 10-year bonds, then wouldn't L be forced into a 5 year bond via the CP?

[Adam Tyson]

Not quite, muhammadtheahmed ! If L is a 10, then R must also be a 10, but that doesn't mean that R is ONLY a 10. R offering both means that R is offering 5 AND offering 10, satisfying the necessary condition when L offers 10. So R offering 5 isn't enough to prove L offers 5; you'd have to know that R offers ONLY 5 to make that inference!