#25 - Principle: Meetings should be kept short, addressing

[tjvan]

Hi, could you help me answer a specific LR question?

On Test 53 Section 3 # 25, I could not figure out how to map the formal logic and reasoning in the stimulus to get answer C. Could you help me map the stimulus out?
Thank you!
-Jan

[Adam Tyson]

I'll try, Jan. We're talking about the Principle regarding meetings? If so, here goes:

The first sentence really doesn't have a diagram - it's not conditional or formal logic, just a principle about what should happen. Meetings should be kept short, addressing only those issues relevant to a majority of those attending.

The second sentence is clearly conditional: IF NO Relevant Issue then NOT Required to Attend (No RI -> No RA).

The application is essentially a conclusion - No RA (Terry).

To strengthen that conclusion, we have only one option, really, and that's to show that the sufficient condition (No RI) also applies to Terry. Answer choice C gets us there by telling us that at this meeting there will be nothing relevant to a majority of people that is also relevant to Terry. Looking back to the first sentence of the principle, anything not relevant to the majority should not be addressed at the meeting. If the only things addressed at the meeting are "No RI (Terry)", then we can get to our conclusion that, for this meeting, "No RA (Terry)".

I sometimes find it helps to supply an example in cases like this. Try this - the only issue relevant to Terry is whether or not his birthday cake will be chocolate. If that's not relevant to the majority of attendees, then that should not be addressed at the meeting. Since nothing else is relevant to Terry, he shouldn't have to attend - our conclusion.

Did that help? Hope so. Good luck!

Adam Tyson
PowerScore LSAT Instructor

[tjvan]

Yes, that helped a lot. Thank you!

[SLF]

With regard to this question, LSAT #53, Section #3, Question #25, would someone kindly explain to me how to discriminate between answer choices 'C' and 'E' and select the correct answer?

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi SLF,

Thanks for your question! The principle contains two conditional statements which can be diagrammed as follows:

1. Meetings should address only those issues relevant to the majority of attendees:

• Issue addressed Relevant to the majority of attendees

2. A person should not be required to attend if none of the issues to be addressed are relevant to him. By the contrapositive, if someone were required to attend, then at least one of the issues addressed must be relevant to him:

• X required to attend At least one issue relevant to X

The question stem requires us to identify a statement that will get Terry of the hook from having to attend the meeting. Based on the second conditional statement, we know that if none of the issues to be addressed at the meeting are relevant to him, Terry would not need to attend. According to answer choice (E), however, the majority of the issues to be addressed are not relevant to Terry. Clearly, there is a disconnect between our prephrase and answer choice (E), as "most are not" is not logically identical to "none." In other words, it is still possible that some of the issues are relevant to Terry, even if most of them are not. Answer choice (E) does not ensure that none of the issues will be relevant to Terry, and therefore fails to justify the conclusion that he need not attend.

Compare that to answer choice (C): no issue relevant to Terry could be relevant to the majority of attendees. Recall the first principle stating that any issue to be addressed at the meeting must be relevant to the majority of attendees. As long as none of the issues relevant to the majority are relevant to Terry (answer choice C), then we can conclude that none of the issues to be addressed at the meeting are relevant to Terry:

Issues addressed Relevant to the majority of attendees Relevant to Terry

Conclusion: Issues addressed Relevant to Terry

Since none of the issues addressed will be relevant to Terry, by the application of the second principle we can conclude that Terry should not be required to attend the meeting.

This is a tough question, so let me know if it all makes sense

Thanks!

[SLF]

Nikki, you give the BEST answers! Thanks so much.

[Sherry001]

Hello;
I had trouble choosing between A and B and C . Here's my thought process as I went through the choices.


1- address issues only relevant to majority
2- don't have to attend if none of the issues are relevant to you.

C: meeting should be kept short.

A- I see how this would strengthen the idea that Terry doesn't have to attend. But I didn't like it because Terry doesn't have to do a presentation. He could just attend because the issues of others may be relevant to him.

B- I saw this as strengthening the idea terry shouldn't attend . But also here, terry doesn't have to do a presentation . He could still attend and listen to other presentations that could be relevant to him .

C- Issues relevant to terry -> not relevant to others
Relevant to others --> not relevant to terry .

So I see how this strengthens the conclusion that terry shouldn't attend , as not only are his issues irrelevant to others , but also other people's issues are irrelevant to him as well.
But I didn't choose this choice because I didn't see it as conditional . I though well If there are 10 issues in the meeting and Terry and the rest don't agree on 4 of them, there is still reason for all to attend.




Thanks so much ,
Sherry

[BethRibet]

Hi Sherry,

Thanks for the question. Answers A & B both introduce the new variable of making a presentation. There is nothing in the stimulus that bears on presentations, only attendance, and therefore A & B are essentially justifying an application which isn't actually happening, or relevant.

Answer choice C indicates that Terry has no relevant issues in common with the majority. Since the meetings only address issues relevant to the majority, this indicates that no issues relevant to Terry will be addressed. The principle also indicates that no one should be required to attend if there are no issues relevant to them. Therefore, the conclusion that Terry should not be required to attend is justified.

I hope this helps!

Beth

[jonwg5121]

Hi,

Can you please explain how to get to answer choice (C)? I chose (C) but was unable to fully diagram everything out.

Issues not relevant to person-->Person not required to attend

If Terry is not required to attend, does that mean that the issues are not relevant to Terry?

(C) Issues relevant to Terry-->Issues not relevant to majority of those attending

Thank you for your help.

[Jon Denning]

Hey Jon,

Thanks for the question! You know, I'm not sure I'd diagram this one out at all, as I think logically we can work our way through it without having to notate each piece (if it was Must Be True or Justify then maybe a diagram would be more useful, but for Strengthen here I'm going to try to mentally work through the pieces before I ever jot things down). In fact, let me try to lay this out logically, and if it's still unclear I can give diagrams a go

First, the principle (general rule) here is essentially two-fold: the only issues addressed in meetings (which should be kept short) are issues relevant to most of the people there, and if there won't be any issues discussed that are relevant to someone then they don't need to attend. So we know something about the issues covered—most people find them relevant—and the people required to attend—at least one issue is relevant to them.

With the application, we're told that Terry shouldn't be required to attend a particular meeting.

The question asks us to strengthen that application, so let's first see what we can determine about the application itself. In fact, think about how we could better know Terry doesn't have to attend: if none of the issues discussed will be relevant to him/her ("him" from here on out)! From the principle we're told that attendance isn't required for people that won't have relevant issued discussed, so if we could suggest that's the case for Terry then this conclusion (the application) looks pretty good!

Now looking at the answer choices, I'm hunting for something that tells me Terry won't find any of the meeting's issues relevant. And that's precisely what we get with (C)!

If (C) is true and there's zero overlap in what's relevant to Terry and what's relevant to the majority of attendees—remember, only issues relevant to the majority can be addressed—then there won't be any Terry-relevant issues covered at the meeting. And that means, as the application states, that Terry shouldn't be required to attend.

It's like if Terry only finds issues 1-5 relevant (and no others), and the majority of attendees only find issues 6-10 relevant (and no others), then only issues 6-10 can be addressed, and none are relevant to Terry. Conclusion? Terry doesn't have to show up.

So this is a somewhat tricky idea, in large part because the language used is intentionally confusing, but hopefully walking through it the way we have and keeping in mind our goal—support the application's statement—it's clear now.

Please let me know if not! Thanks!

Jon