No one in the French department to which Professor Alban belongs is al

1st, this is an LSAT question and would probably be in the upper stratosphere of the tougher questions on the GMAT

2nd, if a question like this pops up, what I try to do is to analyze each fact and see how it relates to what the author is concluding.

Conclusion: “professor will not be teaching 2 introductory classes next term”

Why?

Fact 1: no one in his department can teach more than 1 intro. classes next term. The thing that stands out the most is that this fact alone makes the conclusion almost ironclad. If no one is allowed to teach more than 1 intro class in the French department, then how can this professor.

Fact 2: the only classes being taught next term are advanced ones. Ignoring the other fact, Fact 2 ALONE makes the conclusion pretty bulletproof.

So basically the author is providing 2 facts which, each on their own, are sufficient to support the conclusion and make it pretty bullet proof.

We want an answer in which there is a conclusion based on 2 separate facts, each of which is enough by itself to solidly prove the Conclusion.

If you look at Answer D, TWO separate facts/reasons are provided to prove that they will not pay the tax next year.

The only answer that comes close to this kind of structure is Answer Choice B. However, the 2nd Fact provided is irrelevant to the Conclusion. It does not, by itself, show that they are tax exempt.

If we took the 2nd fact by itself: only the first section applies to buildings built between 1900 and 1920. Does this fact all by itself provide us with a pretty bulletproof reason to say that the building built in 1876 is tax exempt? No, because ignoring the other fact, we do not know if there are other sections in the new revised tax code that might apply to this building. Without the 1st fact, we do not have a 2nd fact that proves the conclusion solidly on its own.

Again, this is a hard LSAT type question.....

Posted from my mobile device