Logical Reasoning

PT139 · S4 · Q6 A first-term board member

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

A first-term board member should not be on the finance committee unless he or she is an accountant or his or her membership on the committee is supported by all the members of the board.

Principle

Most principles are conditional, and this one has an unless. When we see that trigger word, how do we turn it into a conditional?

f.e. "A shouldn't happen, unless B happens"

One method people use for 'unless' is to replace it with 'if-not'.

"A shouldn't happen, if B not happens", which looks like ~B → ~A

Another method people use is to translate the sentence into 'X requires Y' wording. When we hear "A shouldn't happen unless B happens", we can re-write that as "A requires B" which looks like A → B.

Naturally, we'll get the same conditional either way. These two methods just yielded a contrapositive version of the other: ~B → ~A A → B

The conditional principle here is more complex: X shouldn't happen unless Y or Z.

If we do the 'if-not' method, then we're saying X shouldn't happen if not (Y or Z)

If we're saying , that's akin to saying "both Y and Z are false". Negating (Y or Z) means we get ~Y and ~Z. Whenever we're negating an idea, Or turns to And and vice versa. ~Y and ~Z → X

If we used the "turn it into A requires B" method, then would become "X requires Y or Z", which looks like X → Y or Z

So the two ways to write this rule would be this: X → Y or Z ~Y and ~Z → X

Do we know / care which way we write it?

Yes! We want to get the "judgy" (the normative / evaluative) term on the right. What do we mean by judgy?

- good / bad - justified / unjustified - should / shouldn't - permissible / impermissible

Stuff like that. In this principle the words "should not be" are the judgment words. So the right side looks like this.

should not be → on finance committee

We need to put all the qualifying criteria on the left side:

1st-term board member and should not be not an accountant → on finance and committee membership not supported by all

Goal

Okay, the hard part is over. When we read answer choices, we know that the only legal conclusion is "should not be on committee". If any answers are saying "should be", they're automatically wrong.

6.

Which one of the following arguments most closely conforms to the principle stated above?

  1. Simkins is a first-term board

    Missing #3

    To trigger this principle and thus derive that someone shouldn't be on the finance committee, we need to establish three things 1. First term board member 2. Not an accountant 3. Membership not supported by all of board This answer never tells us that Simkins membership isn't supported by all the members of the board. If they all support her, she could still have a chance of being on the finance committee.

    4% picked this

  2. Timmons is a third-term board

    Bad Conclusion

    We don't need to read this one, if we scan for the conclusion and see that it's trying to prove someone "should be" on the committee. The rule only has the power to prove "should not be", because the conclusion has to match the Right Side of the arrow.

    2% picked this

  3. Ruiz is on the finance

    Unclear Application

    We're told that Ruiz is on the finance committee, but not that he should be on the finance committee. So it's not clear we can even apply this rule to his situation. But if we pretended that part was okay, the answer still has a problem. We're told that Ruiz is not an accountant. So if he's first term and not supported by all then he shouldn't be on the board. Since he's on the board, this argument assumes that he was supported by all. But it's possible he wasn't supported by all, and the real reason why he's on the board is that he wasn't a first term board member. If Ruiz is a third term board member, for example, then we don't have any rule to go off of. We wouldn't be able to derive any conclusion about a third term board member.

    10% picked this

  4. Correct

    Klein is a first-term board

    Why this is right

    To trigger this principle and thus derive that someone shouldn't be on the finance committee, we need to establish three things 1. First term board member 2. Not an accountant 3. Membership not supported by all of board This argument establishes 1 and 2. That means that "if 3 is true, then she shouldn't be on the committee". And that's what this argument concludes. It's pretty spicy / tricky that they did a conditional conclusion where they say, "If we get that 3rd missing idea, then the right side follows", but that is an accurate application of the principle.

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

    81% picked this

  5. Mabry is a board member

    Missing #1

    To trigger this principle and thus derive that someone shouldn't be on the finance committee, we need to establish three things 1. First term board member 2. Not an accountant 3. Membership not supported by all of board This answer never tells us that Mabry is a first term board member, just that she's a board member.

    3% 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