#11 - Local

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation
(The complete setup for this game can be found here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=8568)

The correct answer choice is (D)

The question stem eliminates P from the team. From the contrapositive of the second rule, S cannot then be on the team. With P and S eliminated, only six employees—M, O, T, W, Y, and Z—are available to fill the minimum of four spots.

The five answer choices are all stated in similar terms: could it be true that the following pair of employees is not on the team. Thus, you are searching for two employees you could remove from the group of six above, and still form a viable group of four for the team. Thus, the four incorrect answers will remove two variables, and then leave a group of four variables that violates one of the rules. The correct answer will remove two variables, and leave a group of four that is viable.

The first thought may be that, like question #10, M needs to be removed (which would make answer choices (A), (B), and (C) initially attractive). But, M is not as troublesome in this question because the two employees already eliminated—P and S—were problematic for M. Consequently, it is possible for M to be on the team.

As you consider each answer, keep in mind that as the two employees are removed, the remaining four employees must form a working group. If an answer choice is incorrect, it will either violate the:

• M O

portion of the first rule, or contain W without M or Y from the third rule. The second rule is inoperative since S has been removed. Thus, focus on the first and third rules in solving this question. In particular, note that exactly one of M or O must be in the correct answer (but not both because then the first rule would be violated).

Answer choices (A), (B), and (C) all can ultimately be eliminated because they violate the third rule. In each instance, W would be on the research team, but M would not be on the research team. Thus, each answer choice is incorrect and can be eliminated.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. With T being an orphan in this question (because S has been removed, meaning the second rule is no longer in force), T is a likely suspect to be eliminated without consequence. When O is also removed, M can then safely be on the research team. The remaining group of four employees—M, W, Y, and Z—conforms to all rules.

Answer choice (E): can ultimately be eliminated because this also violates the third rule. In this instance, W would be on the research team, but Y would not be on the research team. Thus, this answer choice is incorrect and can be eliminated.

Overall, this is a tricky question, but keep your eye firmly on the group of variables that remains after the pair in each answer choice is removed. As it turns out, every incorrect answer choice violates the third rule.

[mostofthetime]

Hi Powerscore,

I'm still having trouble understanding how to answer this question. I just get that without P there can be no S and then I get stuck since 'no S' isn't a trigger.

I understand how you eliminate the first three ACs. In all three we have removed Myers but not Wong. I even understand how E is wrong because we've taken out Yoder but not Wong.

Maybe I am approaching it wrong. It's not asking so much what is triggered by eliminating P, it's more asking what else can be eliminated safely, without violations?

Thank you!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi mostofthetime,

I think you are getting caught up on the idea of a trigger here. Our trigger isn't "no S," it's "if P is not on the team." Our trigger for the rule then is "not P" which requires the "not S."

From there, we have nothing else that is clearly triggered. M, O, T, W, Y, and Z are all left as possible options. We know that if M O. That means we have M/O, T, W, Y and Z as options for a minimum of a 4 person group. You correctly identified that the third rule becomes key here, as if M or Y are out, it triggers W being out.

Otherwise, your reasoning looks spot on here.

Great work.