- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 5972
- Joined: Mar 25, 2011
- Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:00 am
#23572
Complete Question Explanation
Must be True. The correct answer choice is (B)
This is an all-time classic LSAT question, and a truly confusing one, so if you had trouble here do not despair!
The scenario described in the stimulus is very unusual. The proposal attempts to standardize the calendar so that the same date every year is on the same day. So, for example, if May 1st was a Saturday once the proposal was implemented, then it would always be a Saturday. This would be great for some things—your birthday would always be on the same day, and you wouldn't have to think about which day of the week it was on—it would always be the same (and let's hope it is on a Friday or Saturday
How would they accomplish this standardization? By adding one or two "free days" at the end of each calendar year. These days would essentially be unnumbered and undated, that is, they wouldn't be a Monday or a Thursday. Instead, they would be place holder days, a sort of free day. In this way, they can set January the 1st as a Sunday each year—and then it stays that way, forever. To make it happen that way it also means that December 31st isn't really the day before January 1st—there is a free day or two in-between. The calendar each year starts on Sunday, January first, and plays out regularly until they get to December 30th, and then they add in the one or two free days they need to balance with the orbital cycle.
The stimulus does not make it clear whether these no-man's-land days would be a working day or a vacation day. But one would imagine that for practical sake that they would end up being holidays.
Answer choice (A): Under the scheme, December 30th would always be a Saturday and December 31st would always be a no-man's-land day. This should not present any scheduling conflict because December 30th celebrators would still have their usual date, and the former December 31st celebrators would now have the first "free day" as their birthday. Since every year has a free day, their "birthday" is now just going by a different name.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. These people would have a conflict. In the first year of the scheme, this group of people would be fine during the first year this is implemented. Every seventh day they would take off, probably on Saturday or Sunday depending on their religion. But, what happens to this group at the end of the year? Those "free days" are still actual days, so they count for religious purposes, but they aren't on the calendar. So, all of sudden, in the second year when this group goes to take every seventh day off, they are now taking every Friday (or maybe Thursday—it depends on how this aligns). That's not really going to work over time, and it gets worse the next year, when they then have to count in more free days at the end of year 2. Eventually it comes back around and they get Saturday or Sunday off for the whole year, but most years, they'd be taking a day off in the middle of the regular work week, and that would cause a lot of employment problems (as well as simply being inconvenient since it wouldn't mesh with everyone else's weekends and time off).
Answer choice (C): Under the scheme, the calendar looks exactly the same every year (with the exception of the extra day at the end of leap years), so school districts could plan out their 180 days the same each year. No conflict here.
Answer choice (D): Under the scheme, the calendar looks exactly the same every year, so any given holiday would fall on the same day of the week each year. For any given holiday, either it generates a three-day weekend or it does not, every single year. (Assume that holidays are assigned according to dates on the calendar, rather than lunar cycles or something like that.)
Answer choice (E): Under the scheme, the calendar looks exactly the same every year, so people should not encounter any conflicts in planning ahead.
Must be True. The correct answer choice is (B)
This is an all-time classic LSAT question, and a truly confusing one, so if you had trouble here do not despair!
The scenario described in the stimulus is very unusual. The proposal attempts to standardize the calendar so that the same date every year is on the same day. So, for example, if May 1st was a Saturday once the proposal was implemented, then it would always be a Saturday. This would be great for some things—your birthday would always be on the same day, and you wouldn't have to think about which day of the week it was on—it would always be the same (and let's hope it is on a Friday or Saturday
How would they accomplish this standardization? By adding one or two "free days" at the end of each calendar year. These days would essentially be unnumbered and undated, that is, they wouldn't be a Monday or a Thursday. Instead, they would be place holder days, a sort of free day. In this way, they can set January the 1st as a Sunday each year—and then it stays that way, forever. To make it happen that way it also means that December 31st isn't really the day before January 1st—there is a free day or two in-between. The calendar each year starts on Sunday, January first, and plays out regularly until they get to December 30th, and then they add in the one or two free days they need to balance with the orbital cycle.
The stimulus does not make it clear whether these no-man's-land days would be a working day or a vacation day. But one would imagine that for practical sake that they would end up being holidays.
Answer choice (A): Under the scheme, December 30th would always be a Saturday and December 31st would always be a no-man's-land day. This should not present any scheduling conflict because December 30th celebrators would still have their usual date, and the former December 31st celebrators would now have the first "free day" as their birthday. Since every year has a free day, their "birthday" is now just going by a different name.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. These people would have a conflict. In the first year of the scheme, this group of people would be fine during the first year this is implemented. Every seventh day they would take off, probably on Saturday or Sunday depending on their religion. But, what happens to this group at the end of the year? Those "free days" are still actual days, so they count for religious purposes, but they aren't on the calendar. So, all of sudden, in the second year when this group goes to take every seventh day off, they are now taking every Friday (or maybe Thursday—it depends on how this aligns). That's not really going to work over time, and it gets worse the next year, when they then have to count in more free days at the end of year 2. Eventually it comes back around and they get Saturday or Sunday off for the whole year, but most years, they'd be taking a day off in the middle of the regular work week, and that would cause a lot of employment problems (as well as simply being inconvenient since it wouldn't mesh with everyone else's weekends and time off).
Answer choice (C): Under the scheme, the calendar looks exactly the same every year (with the exception of the extra day at the end of leap years), so school districts could plan out their 180 days the same each year. No conflict here.
Answer choice (D): Under the scheme, the calendar looks exactly the same every year, so any given holiday would fall on the same day of the week each year. For any given holiday, either it generates a three-day weekend or it does not, every single year. (Assume that holidays are assigned according to dates on the calendar, rather than lunar cycles or something like that.)
Answer choice (E): Under the scheme, the calendar looks exactly the same every year, so people should not encounter any conflicts in planning ahead.
Dave Killoran
PowerScore Test Preparation
Follow me on X/Twitter at http://twitter.com/DaveKilloran
My LSAT Articles: http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/author/dave-killoran
PowerScore Podcast: http://www.powerscore.com/lsat/podcast/
PowerScore Test Preparation
Follow me on X/Twitter at http://twitter.com/DaveKilloran
My LSAT Articles: http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/author/dave-killoran
PowerScore Podcast: http://www.powerscore.com/lsat/podcast/
