/*! This file is auto-generated */ .wp-block-button__link{color:#fff;background-color:#32373c;border-radius:9999px;box-shadow:none;text-decoration:none;padding:calc(.667em + 2px) calc(1.333em + 2px);font-size:1.125em}.wp-block-file__button{background:#32373c;color:#fff;text-decoration:none} Problem 5 If \(\mathrm{H}\) 's session is ... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

If \(\mathrm{H}\) 's session is scheduled as the next session after U's session, which one of the following could be true about H's session and U's session? (A) U's session is scheduled for Monday, and H's session is scheduled for Tuesday. (B) U's session is scheduled for Thursday, and H's session is scheduled for Friday. (C) They are both scheduled for Tuesday. (D) They are both scheduled for Thursday. (E) They are both scheduled for Friday.

Short Answer

Expert verified
Both (A) and (B) are possible.

Step by step solution

01

Understanding the Problem

We need to determine which scenario among the given options could logically follow if H's session is scheduled right after U's session. This is essentially an ordering problem.
02

Analyzing Each Option

Let's examine each option to see if it fits the condition that H's session follows U's: - (A) U's session is Monday, H's session Tuesday - This works. - (B) U's session is Thursday, H's session Friday - This works. - (C) Both on Tuesday - Violates the order rule, they can't be consecutive. - (D) Both on Thursday - Violates the order rule, they can't be consecutive. - (E) Both on Friday - Violates the order rule, they can't be consecutive.
03

Determining the Possible Option

From the analysis, options (A) and (B) maintain the required consecutive order of U's session followed by H's session. Options (C), (D), and (E) do not maintain the order, as the sessions fall on the same day.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91Ó°ÊÓ!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Sequencing Problems
Sequencing problems are a common type of question that you will encounter in logical reasoning, such as in the LSAT. They require you to determine the order or sequence of elements, events, or people based on given conditions or rules. In our exercise, we needed to find possible schedules for sessions given that H's session follows U's session. Sequencing problems check your ability to visualize and track an order systematically.

To tackle these problems:
  • Start by understanding the main condition or rule provided.
  • Decompose the problem into smaller parts by testing each possibility individually.
  • Identify invalid possibilities by checking if they violate any given rules.
  • Keep in mind that there may be multiple solutions or sequences that fit the rule.
In our solution, we examined different schedules to identify which ones allowed H's session to follow U's, making options (A) and (B) correct.
Logical Deduction
Logical deduction is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion. In logical reasoning problems, deduction is key to eliminating possibilities that do not fit the constraints of the problem, as seen in our sequencing exercise.

In this LSAT exercise, our task was to deduce the order based on rules for session sequencing. We systematically eliminated options where U's session was not immediately before H's because they did not meet the order requirement. Deductive reasoning helps simplify the problem by only focusing on what is logically possible under the given conditions. This involves:
  • Identifying the premises or conditions.
  • Applying these conditions to each possible scenario.
  • Ruling out scenarios that do not meet all conditions.
  • Selecting the logical conclusions that fit the scenario.
Through this method, options (C), (D), and (E) were eliminated because they did not meet the consecutive order requirement.
Ordering Problems
Ordering problems require you to arrange elements in a specific sequence, just like the ordering of sessions in the LSAT example. This involves understanding and applying constraints that dictate the relative order of elements. These constraints become the rules by which you determine the correct order.

To solve ordering problems effectively, consider:
  • Reading all the rules and understanding the relationships between elements.
  • Identifying which constraints are most restrictive and focusing on them first.
  • Constructing a tentative order and adjusting as you test different options.
  • Being flexible, as sometimes potential solutions need adjustments to meet all constraints.
In the exercise, we found that U and H's sessions could be only sequenced on separate days to meet the rule, leading to valid options being Monday-Tuesday or Thursday-Friday.
Problem-Solving Strategies
Problem-solving strategies are essential tools in logical reasoning challenges, allowing you to approach tasks methodically and efficiently. Having a structured approach can turn complex problems into manageable steps.

Some strategies to employ include:
  • Clarifying the problem by breaking it down into simpler parts.
  • Using process of elimination to discard clearly incorrect options.
  • Utilizing sketching or diagramming to visualize the problem.
  • Verifying your solution by cross-checking it against initial conditions.
In our situation, breaking the problem into smaller parts helped us assess each option. Elimination helped us disregard all choices where H's session did not come immediately after U's, while visualization ensured we adhered to all rules before concluding options (A) and (B) were correct. Problem-solving strategies not only ease the process but enhance accuracy as well.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

A large group of hyperactive children whose regular diets included food containing large amounts of additives was observed by researchers trained to assess the presence or absence of behavior problems. The children were then placed on a low-additive diet for several weeks, after which they were observed again. Originally nearly 60 percent of the children exhibited behavior problems; after the change in diet, only 30 percent did so. On the basis of these data, it can be concluded that food additives can contribute to behavior problems in hyperactive children. The evidence cited fails to establish the conclusion because (A) there is no evidence that the reduction in behavior problems was proportionate to the reduction in food-additive intake (B) there is no way to know what changes would have occurred without the change of diet, since only children who changed to a low-additive diet were studied (C) exactly how many children exhibited behavior problems after the change in diet cannot be determined, since the size of the group studied is not precisely given (D) there is no evidence that the behavior of some of the children was unaffected by additives (E) the evidence is consistent with the claim that some children exhibit more frequent behavior problems after being on the low-additive diet than they had exhibited when first observed

Elena: While I was at the dog show, every dog that growled at me was a white poodle, and every white poodle I saw growled at me. Which one of the following can be properly inferred from Elena's statement? (A) The only white dogs that Elena saw at the dog show were poodles. (B) There were no gray poodles at the dog show. (C) At the dog show, no gray dogs growled at Elena. (D) All the white dogs that Elena saw growled at her. (E) Elena did not see any gray poodles at the dog show.

Harry: Airlines have made it possible for anyone to travel around the world in much less time than was formerly possible. Judith: That is not true. Many flights are too expensive for all but the rich. Judith's response shows that she interprets Harry's statement to imply that (A) the majority of people are rich (B) everyone has an equal right to experience world travel (C) world travel is only possible via routes serviced by airlines (D) most forms of world travel are not affordable for most people (E) anyone can afford to travel long distances by air

Which one of the following best expresses the main point of the passage? (A) Gray marketing is unfair to trademark owners and should be legally controlled. (B) Gray marketing is practiced in many different forms and places, and legislators should recognize the futility of trying to regulate it. (C) The mechanisms used to control gray marketing across markets are different from those most effective in controlling gray marketing within markets. (D) The three trademark law theories that have been applied in gray marketing cases lead to different case outcomes. (E) Current theories used to interpret trademark laws have resulted in increased gray marketing activity.

Sabina: The words used in expressing facts affect neither the facts nor the conclusions those facts will support. Moreover, if the words are clearly defined and consistently used, the actual words chosen make no difference to an argument's soundness. Thus, how an argument is expressed can have no bearing on whether it is a good argument. Emile: Badly chosen words can make even the soundest argument a poor one. After all, many words have social and political connotations that influence people's response to claims expressed in those words, regardless of how carefully and explicitly those words are defined. Since whether people will acknowledge a fact is affected by how the fact is expressed, the conclusions they actually draw are also affected. The point at issue between Emile and Sabina is whether (A) defining words in one way rather than another can alter either the facts or the conclusions the facts will justify (B) a word can be defined without taking into account its social and political connotations (C) a sound argument in support of a given conclusion is a better argument than any unsound argument for that same conclusion (D) it would be a good policy to avoid using words that are likely to lead people either to misunderstand the claims being made or to reason badly about those claims (E) a factor that affects neither the truth of an argument's premises nor the logical relation between its premises and its conclusion can cause an argument to be a bad one

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on English Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.