Indeed a creepy one...!!!
Would be great if we get to know the source of this question
My best guess is Option D
OA please
LSAT creepy one!!
This topic has expert replies
Source: Beat The GMAT — Critical Reasoning |
-
blackarrow
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:05 pm
- Location: Ohio, US
- Thanked: 6 times
I'll go with A.
If every honest farmer is poor, then only ones left are dishonest rich farmers or dishonest poor farmers. However, all poor farmers are already honest(according to the father). Therefore the group left is the dishonest rich farmers.
OA?
If every honest farmer is poor, then only ones left are dishonest rich farmers or dishonest poor farmers. However, all poor farmers are already honest(according to the father). Therefore the group left is the dishonest rich farmers.
OA?
-
gmat740
- MBA Student
- Posts: 1194
- Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 9:42 pm
- Location: Paris, France
- Thanked: 71 times
- Followed by:17 members
- GMAT Score:710
@ kirvar
you are on a go!!
you have answered all the LSAT CR's correctly
OA A
I would definitely love to know your approach, how you attack questions of these sorts??
you are on a go!!
you have answered all the LSAT CR's correctly
OA A
I would definitely love to know your approach, how you attack questions of these sorts??
Source is already mentioned in the thread name itself: LSAT SetsWould be great if we get to know the source of this question
-
relic
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:28 am
- Thanked: 3 times
- GMAT Score:780
This argument can be written as condition statements, the hallmark of LSAT formal logic.
If rich, then not poor AND If poor, then not rich
If not rich, then poor AND If not poor, then not rich
If honest, then not dishonest AND If dishonest, then not honest
If not honest, then dishonest AND If not dishonest, then honest
If poor farmer, then honest AND If not honest , then not poor farmer
Substitute terms: If dishonest, then rich farmer
The author then concludes:
If rich farmer, then dishonest
You can see this is the reverse of the final premise after we substituted terms. So the author is assuming biconditionality (x if and only if y). The first two premises are already biconditional, so we can expect the reverse of some form of the final premise in the answers.
The correct answer is the reverse of the unaltered form of the last premise.
You really won't find questions this immersed in formal logic on the GMAT, so I wouldn't recommend laboring over these ideas, however they are interesting.
If rich, then not poor AND If poor, then not rich
If not rich, then poor AND If not poor, then not rich
If honest, then not dishonest AND If dishonest, then not honest
If not honest, then dishonest AND If not dishonest, then honest
If poor farmer, then honest AND If not honest , then not poor farmer
Substitute terms: If dishonest, then rich farmer
The author then concludes:
If rich farmer, then dishonest
You can see this is the reverse of the final premise after we substituted terms. So the author is assuming biconditionality (x if and only if y). The first two premises are already biconditional, so we can expect the reverse of some form of the final premise in the answers.
The correct answer is the reverse of the unaltered form of the last premise.
You really won't find questions this immersed in formal logic on the GMAT, so I wouldn't recommend laboring over these ideas, however they are interesting.
