LSAT-2001-12-01-14

mygoalusa

If Slate wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission. But Yerxes ismore qualified to head it since she is an architect who has been on teh planning commission for fifteen years. Unless the polls are grossly inaccurate, Slater will win.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from teh information above?

A. If the polls are grossly inaccurate, someone more qualifed than McGuiness will be appointed head of the planning commission.

B. McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission ony if the polls are a good indication of how the election will turn out.

C. Either Slater will inw the lection or Yerxes will be appointed head of the planning commission.

D. McGuinness is not an architect and has not been ont eh planning commission for fifteen years or more.

E. If the polls are good indication of how the election will turn out, someone less qualified than Yerxes will be appointed head of the planning commission.

The logic relations is: accurate/good indication of election → Slater win → McGuinness appointed. The key is E, doesn't B make more sense?

chelseayang

Diagraming B would be like: M appointed--  >poll being a good indication. "Only if" leads a necessary condition. so B is a mistaken reversal.

mygoalusa

thanks, chelseayang, how could i miss that?