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

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?

@ 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??

Would be great if we get to know the source of this question

Source is already mentioned in the thread name itself: LSAT Sets

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.

gmat740 wrote:Hello,

I'd pick A. If every honest is a poor farmer, then remaining people(dishonest ones) must be rich farmers

Option A looks good than other answers