Logical Reasoning

PT21 · S2 · Q20 Ann will either take a leave of

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

Ann will either take a leave of absence from Technocomp and return in a year or else she will quit her job there; but she would not do either one unless she were offered a one-year teaching fellowship at a prestigious university.

Conclusion

If Technocomp (T) doesn't find out that Ann has been offered the fellowship, then Ann will not quit her job.

Evidence

If T doesn't find out that Ann has been offered the fellowship, then it will allow her to take a leave of absence.

If T does find out, they won't allow her.

If A is offered a fellowship, she will either take a leave of absence from T for one year or quit her job.

If A is not offered a fellowship, then she will neither take a leave of absence nor quit her job.

Evaluate

We're trying to prove this conditional conclusion (written each of its two ways):

T doesn't find out → Ann will not quit about fellowship

Ann quits → T found out about fellowship

Would we rather try to work with the first or second formulation? We would base that on whether we recognize any of those triggers or outcomes from the premises.

We have a trigger that matches the first formulation:

T doesn't find out → T will allow leave about fellowship of absence

Were we told about anything that happens when T allows leave of absence? Does that idea take us somewhere else?

No. So we could predict a missing link assumption from this.

The Logic Path of the Conclusion: T doesn't ----------------------------> Ann won't find out quit

The part of the path the Evidence provides: T doesn't -----> offers leave find out of absence

The missing part that our answer should provide: offers leave ------> Ann won't of absence quit

The more conversational way to prep ourselves for the answers is to try to figure out where the wiggle room is with the conclusion. They're saying that she'll only quit if Technocomp finds out about the fellowship, so we'd have to figure out a way to argue that "Technocomp doesn't find out, but she still quits".

If they don't find out, they'll offer her the leave of absence. But who said she has to take the leave of absence just because it's offered? She could still decide to just quit, thinking to herself,

Goal

Look for something saying,

Or look for an answer that rules out the possibility that Technocomp offers the leave of absence, but Ann quits anyway.

20.

Which one of the following, if assumed, allows the conclusion above to be properly drawn?

  1. Technocomp will find out about

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: someone informs on her Sufficient Assumption correct answers almost never bring in any new concepts, such as "whether or not a coworker rats her out". A correct answer should just patch together a loose end in the argument (or to rule out the one possible objection we could make). Even if this answer is true, it does nothing to answer our one big objection: what if T doesn't find out, they offer the leave of absence, but she just quits anyway?

    7% picked this

  2. The reason Ann wants the

    Out of Scope: reason for wanting

    Sufficient Assumption correct answers almost never bring in any new concepts, such as why she wants the fellowship in the first place. They're just meant to patch together a loose end in the argument (or to rule out the one possible objection we could make). Even if this answer is true, it does nothing to answer our one big objection: what if Ann is offered the fellowship, T doesn't find out, they offer the leave of absence, but she just quits anyway?

    2% picked this

  3. Technocomp does not allow any

    Out of Scope: competitors

    Sufficient Assumption correct answers almost never bring in any new concepts, such as Technocomp's competitors. Given how confusing this question is, it would be very useful for us to be able to eliminate (A), (B), and (C) based on out of scope concepts. Even if this answer is true, it does nothing to answer our one big objection: what if Ann is offered the fellowship, T doesn't find out, they offer the leave of absence, but she just quits anyway?

    18% picked this

  4. Correct

    Ann will take a leave

    Why this is right

    This shuts down our possible objection of "what if Techno offers her the leave of absence, but she quits anyway?" It says, Nope, if she's offered the leave of absence, she's taking it. Formally, we were looking for this missing link: offered leave of absence ? won't quit This answer is saying: offered leave of absence ? she will take it So as long as we correctly understand "taking a leave of absence" to mean "leaving a job with the intention of coming back to it", then it's fair to equate "taking a leave of absence" with "not quitting".

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

    63% picked this

  5. Ann would be offered the

    Nullifies Entire Story

    This answer is kind of impossible to assimilate into the set of facts we had. We were told that Ann will not quit unless she's offered the fellowship. This is saying she won't be offered the fellowship unless she quits. So with this mutual stand-off, it's just a stalemate. It leaves her not quitting and not being offered the fellowship. Thus, it doesn't allow us to derive the conclusion, which is constructing an exclusive relationship between quitting and T finding out about the fellowship. Technically, given this answer choice and the facts we were told, Ann will never quit her job at Technocomp. Does that then prove that "she will quit only if X is true"? Kind of, in a vacuous way. The contrapositive is saying "If T doesn't find out about the fellowship, she won't quit". Given that this answer forces us to believe that Ann will never quit, this conclusion could never be wrong. But that means a million other nonsensical conclusions are also proven: "If bananas are worth more than gold, she won't quit" "If Mars turns into a falafel, she won't quit". I think this was logical sloppiness on the part of LSAC, but we should be worried about picking this answer for such a technicality, when we know the spirit of the question task is not related to this type of thinking.

    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