Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT124 S3 Q25 Explanation

Principle: Meetings should be kept short

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

TopicsPrinciple-Strengthen

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Principle: Meetings should be kept short, addressing only those issues relevant to a majority of those attending. A person should not be required to attend a meeting if none of the meeting are relevant to that person.

Application: Terry should not be required to attend today's meeting.

What this question is testing

Principle-Strengthen

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
25.

Which one of the following, if true, most justifies the stated application

Answer choices

  1. Out of Scope5% picked this

    The only issues on which Terry could make a presentation at the meeting are issues irrelevant to at least a majority

    Whether Terry could make a presentation is not relevant to either the principle or it’s application.

  2. Out of Scope2% picked this

    If Terry makes a presentation at the meeting, the meeting will not

    Whether Terry could make a presentation is not relevant to either the principle or it’s application.

  3. Correct61% picked this

    No issue relevant to Terry could be relevant to a majority of those

    Why this is right

    This combined with the first statement in the principle establish that none of the issues discussed at the meeting are relevant to Terry. No issue relevant to Terry RT → ~RMA relevant to the majority of those attending the meeting. So it follows that no issues ~R relevant to Terry will be discussed at the meeting. And so if no issues relevant ~R → ~RA to Terry are addressed, then Terry is not required to attend.

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

  4. Irrelevant Relationship4% picked this

    If Terry attends the meeting a different set of issues will be relevant to a majority of those attending than

    Terry attending the meeting does not establish that Terry is required to attend the meeting. Without knowing whether Terry is required to attend the meeting, nothing can be inferred about which issues are addressed at the meeting.

  5. Too Weak29% picked this

    The majority of the issues to be addressed at the meeting are not

    The application of the principle requires that it be established that no issues relevant to Terry are addressed at the meeting.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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