Logical Reasoning

PT123 · S2 · Q6 An undergraduate degree is necessary

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

An undergraduate degree is necessary for appointment to the executive board.

Evidence (since)

No one with a felony FC → ~EB conviction can be appointed to the [executive] board.

Murray has a felony Murray is FC conviction.

Conclusion (thus)

Murray cannot be Murray is ~EA accepted for the position of Executive Administrator.

Evaluate

We can see that the claim we're trying to prove has a New Concept, "Executive Administrator". The argument must be assuming something about EA, so we can trash any answer that doesn't talk about EA.

Given what we were told, since Murray has a felony, he can't be appointed to the board. The conclusion is trying to get from that negative idea to the negative idea that he can't be Executive Administrator.

Goal

So the author must be assuming, or by contrapositive

~AB → ~EA or EA → AB

6.

The argument's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

  1. Anyone with a master’s degree

    Negation

    This negates the FC ? ~EB second premise.

    7% picked this

  2. Correct

    Only candidates eligible for appointment

    Why this is right

    This bridges the gap EA ? EB between the Executive Administrator and the executive board. Only signifies a right side / required idea. So, we get "If can be accepted for EA, then eligible for appt to EB" and by contrapositive "If not eligible for EB, can't be accepted for EA". We know Murray has a felony, so he can't be appointed to the EB. Thus, he's ineligible for EB. And so according to this rule, he can't be accepted for EA, which proves our conclusion.

    Skill tested: Sufficient Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    74% picked this

  3. An undergraduate degree is not

    Weakens

    This weakens the assumption since an undergraduate degree is necessary for appointment to the executive board, which the argument assumes is necessary for appointment to the position of Executive Administrator.

    1% picked this

  4. If Murray did not have

    Illegal Negation

    If this rule said, "If you have a felony conviction, then you can't be accepted as EA" then it would successfully prove the conclusion. But this answer is an illegal negation of that idea. It's a useless rule to us, because we know we can't trigger it. Murray does have a felony conviction.

    17% picked this

  5. The felony charge on which

    Out of Scope

    Whether the felony charge was relevant to the duties of the position of Executive Administrator is not relevant to the argument. This would also be Too Weak, even if we considered it impactful. The fact that the felony charge would be relevant to the EA's duties still would not provide PROOF, which is what we need, that Murray can't be the EA. The logical force of the felony charge was to establish that Murray can't be appointed to the board. We've already "used" Murray's felony conviction to move forward in the argument. We're trying to get an answer that will move us forward from "can't be appointed to board" to the finish line of "can't be accepted for EA".

    1% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free