Hard LSAT question to find out if you are smart enough for law school

Z

Zoot Allures

Well-known member
Jan 23, 2017
2,817
1,385
113
Every proposal that is either funded by the committee or endorsed by the director is reviewed by the ethics board. No proposal that is reviewed by the ethics board is implemented unless it has received legal approval. Some proposals that have received legal approval are not funded by the committee. All proposals that are endorsed by the director are funded by the committee.

Question:
Which one of the following must be true?

(A) Some proposals reviewed by the ethics board are not funded by the committee.
(B) All proposals that are implemented have received legal approval.
(C) Some proposals that are not funded by the committee are endorsed by the director.
(D) No proposal that is endorsed by the director is implemented without legal approval.
(E) Some proposals that are implemented are not reviewed by the ethics board.


The key is to review every word and its exact meaning and not inferring anything

I assume this question is meant to reflect how you would read and understand a contract or legal ruling.

Top 10% of LSAT needed to get in average law school now consider the competition is top under grads with high GPA degree

and you have to be in top 10% of that

IQ 115 minimum I would think
 
Last edited:
""...either funded by the committee or endorsed by the director is...""

Bold and colour letter words are very tricky.
 
The trick, if there is time, is to rewrite the flow so it makes more sense.

Ethics vets after committe puts ideas forward.
Committee puts all director ideas forward

Legal must bless ideas before consider funding.
Comittee then selects what ideas to fund
Comittee funds all director ideas that get past ethics and legal.\


Do it that way and questions are easier to answer
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kanadier
Zoot Allures said:
Top 10% of LSAT needed to get in average law school now consider the competition is top under grads with high GPA degree

and you have to be in top 10% of that

IQ 115 minimum I would think
Click to expand...
You would think that this is the standard, but it is not.

It is actually easy to get into law school, albeit the ivy leagues, UOFT, McGill and Queens.

Law schools in Canada ONLY care about your cumulative average in undergrad. So, many students will intentionally enroll in an easy program like marketing OR they will take advantage of DEI programs.

I am speaking based on experience.

Do your homework before hiring a defense lawyer!
 
  • Like
Reactions: breeziebaby
Ponderling said:
The trick, if there is time, is to rewrite the flow so it makes more sense.

Ethics vets after committe puts ideas forward.
Committee puts all director ideas forward

Legal must bless ideas before consider funding.
Comittee then selects what ideas to fund
Comittee funds all director ideas that get past ethics and legal.\


Do it that way and questions are easier to answer
Click to expand...


the answer is in the first 2 sentences the rest is confusing msdirection IMHO
 
  • F = funded by the committee
  • E = endorsed by the director
  • R = reviewed by the ethics board
  • I = implemented
  • L = received legal approval


  • → means implies



  • Given:
    1. (F or E)→R
    2. R→(I→L)
    3. Some L are are not F.
    4. E→F


    5. E→F→R




      E→R, R→(I→L)
      Therefore:
      E→(I→L)




      Meaning:
      No proposal endorsed by the director is implemented without legal approval.

      this is the only answer always true
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shaquille Oatmeal
Zoot Allures said:
Every proposal that is either funded by the committee or endorsed by the director is reviewed by the ethics board. No proposal that is reviewed by the ethics board is implemented unless it has received legal approval. Some proposals that have received legal approval are not funded by the committee. All proposals that are endorsed by the director are funded by the committee.

Question:
Which one of the following must be true?

(A) Some proposals reviewed by the ethics board are not funded by the committee.
(B) All proposals that are implemented have received legal approval.
(C) Some proposals that are not funded by the committee are endorsed by the director.
(D) No proposal that is endorsed by the director is implemented without legal approval.
(E) Some proposals that are implemented are not reviewed by the ethics board.


The key is to review every word and its exact meaning and not inferring anything

I assume this question is meant to reflect how you would read and understand a contract or legal ruling.

Top 10% of LSAT needed to get in average law school now consider the competition is top under grads with high GPA degree

and you have to be in top 10% of that

IQ 115 minimum I would think
Click to expand...

This just seems like an old school logic problem, why would it be on the LSAT?
 
Mandala said:
  • F = funded by the committee
  • E = endorsed by the director
  • R = reviewed by the ethics board
  • I = implemented
  • L = received legal approval


  • → means implies



  • Given:
    1. (F or E)→R
    2. R→(I→L)
    3. Some L are are not F.
    4. E→F


    5. E→F→R




      E→R, R→(I→L)
      Therefore:
      E→(I→L)




      Meaning:
      No proposal endorsed by the director is implemented without legal approval.

      this is the only answer always true
Click to expand...

Mandala is correct.

The statement " Some proposals that have received legal approval are not funded by the committee. " is irrelevant, because the director only endorses proposals funded by the committee. Any proposal not funded by the committee might have legal approval, but it will not be reviewed by the ethics board. The ethics board only reviews proposals which have been endorsed by the director. The determination of legal approval by the ethics board is the last step of the procedure.

Mandala is off his duck in Hard LSAT Question to Find out if You Are Smart Enough for Law School.
 
I took the LSATs when I was deciding on what to do as a career and honestly it is not that bad. The trick is to practice. There are only a few types of questions asked in different ways. There is a technique to finding the answer. I took an intensive course dissecting each question type which helped a lot and I highly recommend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xix
kona said:
There is a technique to finding the answer. I took an intensive course dissecting each question type which helped a lot and I highly recommend.
Click to expand...

Did you use venn diagrams to solve problems?? Such a skill could be useful in life so I was trying to figure out a quick
fool proof method and wondered about venn diagrams that I learned in high school math
 
Mandala said:
I asked AI for hard LSAT word question and this is what they gave me

I think the trick is the test is timed and you need to be in the top 10% and all the applicants you compete with have degrees that they aced so you have to think quickly and accurately.
Click to expand...

I took a logic course in college, 40+ years ago. I don't remember the formatting of the logic statements, using -> and ^ and letters, so I explained it in words.

I do remember that one of the statements from the course which was used was "There are fine universities in Connecticut and Kansas". I don't know if the guy who wrote that intended that the letter variables would be F, U, C and K.

I DO remember that in 'If statements', when the premise is false, the result is always logically true, even when it may appear to be intuitively wrong:

If True then True = True (If dogs are animals, then five is a prime number).
If False then False = True (If September has 31 days, then Keith Moon was the drummer for Led Zeppelin).
If True then False = False (If Earth is a Planet, then insects have ten legs).
If False then True = True (If Toronto is the capital of Canada, then molecules have mass).
 
Mandala said:
  • F = funded by the committee
  • E = endorsed by the director
  • R = reviewed by the ethics board
  • I = implemented
  • L = received legal approval


  • → means implies



  • Given:
    1. (F or E)→R
    2. R→(I→L)
    3. Some L are are not F.
    4. E→F


    5. E→F→R




      E→R, R→(I→L)
      Therefore:
      E→(I→L)




      Meaning:
      No proposal endorsed by the director is implemented without legal approval.

      this is the only answer always true
Click to expand...

I'm trying to understand your notation.
I really can't follow it.
 
kona said:
I took the LSATs when I was deciding on what to do as a career and honestly it is not that bad. The trick is to practice. There are only a few types of questions asked in different ways. There is a technique to finding the answer. I took an intensive course dissecting each question type which helped a lot and I highly recommend.
Click to expand...

So does it have things like these?
It seems weird to have word logic puzzles on a law exam.

Zoot Allures said:
I assume this question is meant to reflect how you would read and understand a contract or legal ruling.
Click to expand...

I guess?

Anyway, I would have probably just done short hand since it was timed.
It's a single correct answer, so unless you doubt yourself, you can stop at the first correct answer.

The question asks " Which one of the following must be true? "

Since it is a must then you can save the "some" answers for last. (They might be the right answer, but probably aren't, so why waste time?)

Going in order, the first one is: B) All proposals that are implemented have received legal approval.

We know
  1. "Every proposal that is either funded by the committee or endorsed by the director is reviewed by the ethics board."
  2. No proposal that is reviewed by the ethics board is implemented unless it has received legal approval.
  3. Some proposals that have received legal approval are not funded by the committee.
  4. All proposals that are endorsed by the director are funded by the committee.
None of those say that everything implemented has to have been funded by the committee or endorsed by the director. Which means it is possible to be implemented without being reviewed by the ethics board. So we can' t be sure that everything implemented got legal approval.

Next - D) "No proposal that is endorsed by the director is implemented without legal approval. "

If it was endorsed by the director we KNOW it was reviewed by the ethics board. (Statement 1)
If it was reviewed by the ethics board and implemented, then it received legal approval (Statement 2)

Therefore this must be true.
 
From post #1:

Every proposal that is either funded by the committee or endorsed by the director is reviewed by the ethics board. No proposal that is reviewed by the ethics board is implemented unless it has received legal approval. Some proposals that have received legal approval are not funded by the committee. All proposals that are endorsed by the director are funded by the committee.

Question:
Which one of the following must be true?

(A) Some proposals reviewed by the ethics board are not funded by the committee.
(B) All proposals that are implemented have received legal approval.
(C) Some proposals that are not funded by the committee are endorsed by the director.
(D) No proposal that is endorsed by the director is implemented without legal approval.
(E) Some proposals that are implemented are not reviewed by the ethics board.



***********************



The director will endorse all, some or none of the proposals funded by the committee.

The ethics board reviews all proposals endorsed by the director, and some or all of the proposals not funded by the committee.

What isn't stated is whether or not the ethics board has the authority to implement a proposal which has legal approval, but does not have the endorsement of the director.


(A) is true because "Some proposals that have received legal approval are not funded by the committee." These legally approved proposals necessarily do not have the endorsement of the director, because the director only endorses proposals funded by the committee. This assumes that ONLY the ethics board determines legal compliance.
(B) is true.
(C) is false.
(D) is true,
(E) is false.
 
Last edited:
onomatopoeia said:
From post #1:

Every proposal that is either funded by the committee or endorsed by the director is reviewed by the ethics board. No proposal that is reviewed by the ethics board is implemented unless it has received legal approval. Some proposals that have received legal approval are not funded by the committee. All proposals that are endorsed by the director are funded by the committee.

Question:
Which one of the following must be true?

(A) Some proposals reviewed by the ethics board are not funded by the committee.
(B) All proposals that are implemented have received legal approval.
(C) Some proposals that are not funded by the committee are endorsed by the director.
(D) No proposal that is endorsed by the director is implemented without legal approval.
(E) Some proposals that are implemented are not reviewed by the ethics board.



***********************



The director will endorse all, some or none of the proposals funded by the committee.

The ethics board reviews all proposals endorsed by the director, and some or all of the proposals not funded by the committee.

What isn't stated is whether or not the ethics board has the authority to implement a proposal which has legal approval, but does not have the endorsement of the director.


(A) is true because "Some proposals that have received legal approval are not funded by the committee." These legally approved proposals necessarily do not have the endorsement of the director, because the director only endorses proposals funded by the committee. This assumes that ONLY the ethics board determines legal compliance.
(B) is true.
(C) is false.
(D) is true,
(E) is false.
Click to expand...
Why do you think B is true?
 
Valcazar said:
Why do you think B is true?
Click to expand...

It is possible that a proposal endorsed by the director AND favourably reviewed by the ethics board for legality MIGHT not be implemented.

Nit well picked, but that's what logic is all about. I did mention that I took the course 40+ years ago.

I've moved on from this thread.

I'm reminded of a verbal exchange I once had with a now-deceased lawyer who was later appointed as a Judge. His name isn't relevant.

He had written an amendment to a pension plan document that was clearly copy/ pasted from previous work, (but billed as new), with variables changed. The problem was that the scenario he proposed was impossible, because the deadline to do something had passed before the amendment was published. Rather than admit his error, he said "I know exactly what I think it means".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
U.S. Lawmakers Warn Banks Against Trump's Russian Diesel Deal
Replies
0
Views
90
Politics, Religion & International Affairs
oil&gas
O
canada-man
WestJet contract negotiations head to conciliation
Replies
0
Views
51
Politics, Religion & International Affairs
canada-man
canada-man
X
Trump threatens to block foreign trade if Fed won’t cut interest rate
Replies
14
Views
506
Politics, Religion & International Affairs
kherg007
K
C
Dem Senate hopeful in Alaska says ‘no thanks’ to Kamala Harris’ support
Replies
4
Views
248
Politics, Religion & International Affairs
HungSowel
H
H
Canada risks 'suicide contagion' if euthanasia is approved for mental illness, psychiatrist warns
Replies
38
Views
731
Politics, Religion & International Affairs
SaulGoodman777
S
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom
Back