Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 05 May 2016, 04:52

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# LSAT Kasheska Weird One

Author Message
Eternal Intern
Joined: 07 Jun 2003
Posts: 467
Location: Lone Star State
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 104 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Jul 2003, 19:52
Unless negotions begin soon, the cease-fire will be violated by one of the two sides to the dispute. Negotions will be held only if other countries have pressured the two sides to negotiate; an argument will emerge only if other countries continue such pressure throughout the negotions. But no negotiations will be held until international troops enforcing the cease-fire have demonstrated their ability to counter any agression from either side, thus suppressing a major incentive for the two sides to resume fighting.

If the statements above are true, and if negotions between the two sides do begin soon, at the time home negotiations begin each of the folllowing must also be true EXCEPT:

A) The cease-fire has not been violated by either of the two sides
B) International troops enforcing the cease-fire have demonstrated that they can counter aggression from either of the two sides.

C) A major incentive for the two sides to resume hostilities has been suppressed.

D) Other countries have exerted pressure on the two sides to the dispute. - Is this a typo? What the hell does LSAT mean here?

E) The negotiations' reaching an agreement depends in part on the actions of other countries.
SVP
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 1603
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 160 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Jul 2003, 23:47
Playing with formal logic about 4 minutes, I think that the answer is A.
GMAT Instructor
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 770
Location: New York NY 10024
Schools: Haas, MFE; Anderson, MBA; USC, MSEE
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2003, 01:50
stolyar wrote:
Playing with formal logic about 4 minutes, I think that the answer is A.

Hey, Stolyar! See how handy that formal logic crap is? Do you think you could have solved this without it? (Note: i posted a formal logic drill about a week ago and only Stolyar attempted to solve it. Seems it may have done some good! <grin>).

Detailed solution:

This is pretty straightforward if you can quickly "interpret" the premises in the statement in simple "if then" form. As far as "formal logic" goes, there is only one rule you need to know: "if P then Q" is equivalent to "if not Q then not P". The solution looks long and complicated only because I am writing EVERYTHING out in detail. (I would normally make concise diagrams with symbols).

Original statement:
1) Unless negotions begin soon, the cease-fire will be violated by one of the two sides to the dispute.
2) Negotiations will be held only if other countries have pressured the two sides to negotiate;
3) an argeement will emerge only if other countries continue such pressure throughout the negotions.
4) But no negotiations will be held until international troops enforcing the cease-fire have demonstrated their ability to counter any agression from either side, thus suppressing a major incentive for the two sides to resume fighting.

Here are the "logical" translations of all of the premises into basic "if-then" form:

1: If negotiations do not begin soon, the cease-fire will be violated
If the cease-fire is not violated, then the negotiation must have been held soon

2: If negotiations are held, then other countries must have applied pressure.
If the other countries do not apply pressure, then the negotiation will not be held.

3: If aggreement emerges, then other countries must have sustained pressure.
If countries do not sustain pressure, then an aggreement will not emerge.

4: If international troops do not enforce the treaty, then negotiations will not be held.
If negotiations are being held, then it must be true that international troops have demonstrated there ability to counter aggression thus suppressing a major incentive to resume fighting.

If the above is true AND given that:
"negotions between the two sides do begin soon, at the time home negotiations begin" which means
"The negotiation were begun soon and are now proceeding."

Which of the following is NOT a logical conclusion of the above? (I.e., "Which of the following is either NOT true, or NOT NECESSARILY true?" or "All of the following MUST BE TRUE except which answer choice?")

A) The cease-fire has not been violated by either of the two sides
(1) says "If negotiation do not begin soon then cease fire violated". Although we are given that negotiations did begin soon, we cannot concllude that the cease fire was violated.
(Given "if P then Q" and "P is not true", we cannot conclude anything about Q). Assuming "Q is not true" based on "P is not true" is such a common error that it has its own name: it is called the "denying the premise" fallacy) . Hence, A is not necessarily true and we can stop right here.

Let's examine the other four choices:

B) International troops enforcing the cease-fire have demonstrated that they can counter aggression from either of the two sides.

According to (4), if negotiations are held, then the international troops must have demonstrated their ability . . . . Since negotiations have indeed started. (B) MUST be true.

C) A major incentive for the two sides to resume hostilities has been suppressed.

(C) is a direct consequence of (B). Since B must be true, C also must be true.

D) Other countries have exerted pressure on the two sides to the dispute. - Is this a typo? What the hell does LSAT mean here?

According to (2), if negotiations are held, then pressure must have been applied by other countries. Since negotiations are being held, (D) MUST be true.

E) The negotiations' reaching an agreement depends in part on the actions of other countries.

According to (3), if an agreement emerges, then other countries must have continued to applied pressure. Equivalently, If other country do not apply pressure, an agreement will NOT be reached. Since the emergence (or lack of) an agreement is clearly dependent on whether other countries apply pressure or not, this constitutes a dependence on the actions of other countries. Hence, (E) must be true.

Hence, A is the only choice that is NOT NECESSARILY TRUE and thereby the correct answer choice.

_________________

Best,

AkamaiBrah
Former Senior Instructor, Manhattan GMAT and VeritasPrep
Vice President, Midtown NYC Investment Bank, Structured Finance IT
MFE, Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley, Class of 2005
MBA, Anderson School of Management, UCLA, Class of 1993

Last edited by AkamaiBrah on 25 Jul 2003, 03:24, edited 6 times in total.
SVP
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 1603
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 160 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2003, 02:09
NEVER this is too tough to solve knowing no formal logic rules. Only guessing is left to employ.

But I have your lessons and exercises.

I think this problem comes from the LSAT. It is unlikely to get the like on the GMAT, but who knows!
GMAT Instructor
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 770
Location: New York NY 10024
Schools: Haas, MFE; Anderson, MBA; USC, MSEE
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2003, 02:38
stolyar wrote:
NEVER this is too tough to solve knowing no formal logic rules. Only guessing is left to employ.

But I have your lessons and exercises.

I think this problem comes from the LSAT. It is unlikely to get the like on the GMAT, but who knows!

I have seen questions similar to this on the GMAT. This is fair game.
_________________

Best,

AkamaiBrah
Former Senior Instructor, Manhattan GMAT and VeritasPrep
Vice President, Midtown NYC Investment Bank, Structured Finance IT
MFE, Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley, Class of 2005
MBA, Anderson School of Management, UCLA, Class of 1993

Eternal Intern
Joined: 07 Jun 2003
Posts: 467
Location: Lone Star State
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 104 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2003, 06:31
Never mind, I got you. What other sites have this type of reasoning that you learned from?

Last edited by Curly05 on 25 Jul 2003, 09:13, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 56
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2003, 08:01
Can you post the link to the drill that you were referring to.

Thanks
_________________

Attain Moksha

Eternal Intern
Joined: 07 Jun 2003
Posts: 467
Location: Lone Star State
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 104 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2003, 10:00

Can you show some concrete examples on why? If not P, then not Q is wrong? Please share your lessons and exercises with the Club. Hey do you have money to buy the paper tests for $25. I am poor and quite handicapped in life. I would appreciate it. GMAT Instructor Joined: 07 Jul 2003 Posts: 770 Location: New York NY 10024 Schools: Haas, MFE; Anderson, MBA; USC, MSEE Followers: 16 Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 0 [#permalink] ### Show Tags 25 Jul 2003, 10:38 Curly05 wrote: :lol: Can you show some concrete examples on why? If not P, then not Q is wrong? Please share your lessons and exercises with the Club. Hey do you have money to buy the paper tests for$25. I am poor and quite handicapped in life. I would appreciate it.

This is the most FUNDAMENTAL result of logic and the proof is simplicity in itself.

Assume we are given the premise that if P is true, then Q is true. Well then, if Q is NOT true, P cannot be true also because if P was true, Q would be true also. Hence, P cannot be true.

However, the premise only gives us a conclusion regarding Q WHEN P IS true. When P is NOT true, we have no logical basis to make ANY conclusion regarding Q.

Examples:
If he is a man, then he is human.
If he is not a man, then he is not human (WRONG, women are human also).

If you get good grades and a good GMAT score, then you will get into a good school.
If you do NOT get good grades and a good GMAT score, then you will NOT get into a good school (WRONG, you could get in via a number of different ways: rich alumnus parent, know somebody, etc.)

If you are smart, then you will succeed.
If you are not smart, then you will not succeed (wrong, some people are just lucky).
_________________

Best,

AkamaiBrah
Former Senior Instructor, Manhattan GMAT and VeritasPrep
Vice President, Midtown NYC Investment Bank, Structured Finance IT
MFE, Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley, Class of 2005
MBA, Anderson School of Management, UCLA, Class of 1993

Manager
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Posts: 149
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2003, 13:11
Simply Mindblowing..

That made the CR logic so much simpler and clearer.

Thanks a ton Akamaibrah.... , your explanation was marvellous.

I am highly appreciable and thankful for that...
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Weird disparity between practice questions and tests 1 20 Sep 2015, 12:53
60 Mauritius was a British colony for almost 200 years, 22 05 Dec 2008, 20:32
Weird idea but just a suggestion. 2 15 Apr 2008, 09:50
LSAT-Election-campaigns 4 30 Apr 2007, 22:19
Usefulness of LSAT material? 3 28 Feb 2007, 23:55
Display posts from previous: Sort by