Logical Reasoning

PT125 · S2 · Q5 Byrne: One of our club's bylaws

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

Byrne: One of our club's bylaws specifies that any officer who fails to appear on time for any one of the quarterly board meetings, or who misses two of our monthly general meetings, must be suspended.

Evidence

Any officer who fails to appear ~QM or ~MM → S on time for any one of the quarterly board meetings, or who misses two of our monthly general meetings, must be suspended.

Thibodeaux, an officer, was S recently suspended.

Thibodeaux has never missed MM a monthly general meeting.

Conclusion

Therefore, Thibodeaux must ~QM have failed to appear on time for a quarterly board meeting.

Evaluate

The argument reverses the S → ~QM or ~MM logic of the conditional relationship. It assumes that if an officer has been suspended, then the officer must have failed to appear on time for one of the quarterly board meetings or missed two of our monthly general meetings.

5.

The reasoning in Byrne's argument is flawed in that the argument

  1. fails to consider the possibility

    Out of Scope

    Arriving late for a general monthly meeting is not discussed in the club’s bylaw.

    5% picked this

  2. Correct

    presumes, without providing justification, that

    Why this is right

    This describes logic that is bidirectional. It presents the assumption which reverses the logic of the club’s bylaw.

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

    78% picked this

  3. takes for granted that an

    Bad Objection

    The most glaring assumption the author is making is that "these are the only two ways to get suspended". That assumption is required to establish the conclusion. But we couldn't be mad if the author was acting like that assumption would also be sufficient. That assumption would be sufficient! We're mad at the author for assuming "there are only two ways to get suspended". This answer is saying we're mad that the author thinks such an assumption is sufficient. We can't be mad at that, because such an assumption is sufficient. If we say, "there are only two ways to get suspended: X and Y. Thibo got suspended and didn't do Y. Thus, he must have done X", that is rock solid logic.

    16% picked this

  4. fails to specify at what

    Out of Scope

    The argument does not rest on the point someone arriving at a club meeting is officially deemed late.

    1% picked this

  5. does not specify how long

    Out of Scope

    The length of time Thibodeaux has been an officer is not relevant to the argument.

    0% 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