Logical Reasoning

PT146 · S3 · Q20 The company president says that

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

The company president says that significant procedural changes were made before either she or Yeung was told about them.

Conclusion

Assuming what Grimes and the president said is true, the contract was violated.

Evidence

(Assuming the truth of their statements) The contract states that a big change can't be made unless the president or a member of the legal department is told.

Neither the president nor Yeung was told about the big changes.

Evaluate

Okay, so we have a clearly defined goal -- the contract was violated. To reach that verdict, we just have to establish that neither the president nor anyone on the legal team was told about the change in advance.

We already know that president wasn't told in advance.

So we just need to establish that no one on the legal team was told. We know that Yeung was not told, but who cares? We don't know if Yeung is on the legal team, and even if he is, we'd still need to ask the rest of the legal team if any of them were told about the big change.

Goal

We just need an answer to establish that no one on the legal team was told, either.

20.

The argument's conclusion can be properly inferred if which one of the following is assumed?

Yeung is a lawyer in
Strengthens, Doesn't Prove
Our job is to establish that no one in the legal department was told about this big procedural change. We know Yeung wasn't told, so when we find out he's part of the legal department it scratches one lawyer off our list, but we need to find out that none of the lawyers were told in order to say the contract was violated.
20% picked this
Neither Grimes nor Yeung was
Unrelated to Goal
All we care about is whether or not anyone in the legal department was notified of these big changes. If it's not talking about that (as this is not), then it's useless to our goal of proving the contract was violated.
4% picked this
Correct
No lawyer in the company’s
Why this is right
This is what we came for. Since the president wasn't notified and no one in the legal department was notified, the contract was violated.
Skill tested: Sufficient Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
62% picked this
If the company’s president was
Unrelated to Goal
All we care about is whether or not anyone in the legal department was notified of these big changes. If it's not talking about that (as this is not), then it's useless to our goal of proving the contract was violated.
4% picked this
If no lawyer in the
No Impact
Agreed, choice (E). Good summary of where were at when we came over here to the answer choices. We knew that for the contract to be violated, we had to establish that the president wasn't told and that no one in the legal department was told. The president said she wasn't told. Check. So ... if no lawyer in the legal department was told, then the contract was violated! Alright answer choices, what do you got? Choice (E) is holding a mirror up to our thought process, not providing us with the new fact we're looking for. We're trying to prove "the contract was violated" ... it happened. it's a fact. We need to know "no lawyer in the legal department was told beforehand" as a fact. This answer is presenting it as a hypothetical.
10% 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