#22 - Local, Must Be True, Minimum

[Dave Killoran]

Complete Question Explanation
(The complete setup for this game can be found here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=16592)

The correct answer choice is (B)

The best voting result J can hope for this year is two votes against and one vote for. Since promotion requires a majority vote, to be promoted J needs 2 more “for” votes (to get to a 3-2 majority). Any assistant promoted to associate is a voting member, and thus answer choice (B) is correct.

[khana87]

Hi, I am having trouble with question 22.

Content Removed By Admin - LSAT Questions Cannot Be Posted; All we need is the LSAT Date, Section Number, and Question Number (or Book page number as you provided). Thanks!

q22) ans:b) 2. but I thought it was 5!

Help!

[Dave Killoran]

Hey Khana,

Thanks for the question. I wonder if you might have misread the question stem. The question asks for the smallest number of associates who must be promoted this year. Based on your thought that the answer was 5, it looks like you were looking at the smallest number of total voters needed so that J could get a majority and be promoted. But, there are already 3 voters, so to get to 5, 2 more voters are needed, hence (B) is correct.

Here's the explanation of how it works, as drawn from our
LSAT Logic Games Setups Encyclopedia, which contains complete setups for every game, and explanations for every question:

"The best voting result J can hope for this year is two votes against and one vote for. Since promotion requires a majority vote, to be promoted J needs 2 more “for” votes (to get to a 3-2 majority). Any assistant promoted to associate is a voting member, and thus answer choice (B) is correct."

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[LustingFor!L]

I am lost on this question - I'm not even sure what to ask? I don't understand what the question stem is asking me to do and I don't understand the 3-2 majority.. how are there 5 people?

[LustingFor!L]

I think I'm not fully grasping the this year and next year concept, which is confusing me on everything.

[Claire Horan]

The first thing you need to do (if you haven't yet) is draw a diagram of the problem and start putting the information in. You can't expect to understand logic games questions just from reading them. And you won't understand my explanation at all if you don't draw it out.

Various diagrams are possible, but mine has 3 columns and two rows. The three columns are for assistants, associates, and partners. The two rows are for this year's status (before this year's review) on the top row, and next year's status (before next year's review) on the bottom row. Some people, like H and R are in the same place for both rows. Others, like O, change their status after the first review.

The question gives you information about what happens in the second review (next year's review). This means that J is in the first column for the bottom row. Only people who are either in the second or third column on the bottom row voted on J's promotion, and we know that more of them voted for him than against him. We know that O and H are J's superiors (eligible to vote for him), and we are told they never voted for him. Therefore, they voted against him. If he had two votes against him, he must have had at least three votes for him. R could have voted for him, leaving two others who must be in the second column on the bottom row. Because no one else could have been promoted to partner (only O was an associate), these two voters must be in the first column on the top row. In other words, at least two assistants must have been promoted.

[MeghanV]

Do the rules given apply to next year's review? Will O and H still vote 'no' on Johnson's promotion?

[Daniel Stern]

Hi Meghan:

Although there is "this year's review" and "next year's review," notice that the rules are framed as absolutes in terms of time: each rule employs the term "never."

So the answer to your question is that yes, the rules apply to the voting for both this year's review and next year's review.

Hope this is helpful, good luck in your studies!

[hosaini]

Hello,

I interpreted this question stem as a rule suspension question. How can I avoid making this mistake again?

[KelseyWoods]

Hi hosaini!

Rule Suspension questions have to explicitly tell you to remove or replace one of your original rules. They usually also say something like "all other conditions remain in effect" to indicate that you are only removing/replacing one of the original rules and all of the other rules still apply. Also, you will not always have a rule suspension question in a game, but if you do have one, it is always the last question in that game.

Questions like this that just add another restriction without removing a original restriction are called Local questions. All of the original rules apply in addition to the new local restriction. The local restriction only applies to the specific question in which it is introduced. So Johnson being promoted to associate during next year's review is only something that must be true for question #22; once you move onto question #23, Johnson no longer has to be promoted during next year's review.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey