Every employee who takes public transportation to and from work eats

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Answer: B

STEP 1: Read the question and identify your task.
This is an Assumption question. The question asks which answer makes the logic of the argument successful.

STEP 2: Read the argument with your task in mind.
In the argument, despite the claim that the second statement “follows” from the first, it does not actually do so.

STEP 3: Know what you’re looking for.
Therefore, you must find the assumption that, when inserted between the first and second statements, will make the conclusion work.

STEP 4: Read every word of every answer choice.
Answer A ignores the condition of having or not having an office and thus does not help the conclusion. Answer B seems to meet your needs. Since every employee who takes public transportation eats lunch in the company break room, it follows that if some employees who eat in the company break room have an office (as stated in answer B), then there are some employees with an office who do not eat in the break room and thus do not take public transportation. Answer C results in every employee with an office taking public transportation, which contradicts the conclusion. Answer D does not lead to any conclusion involving those who have an office or whether they take or do not take public transportation. Answer E tells you something about those who eat in the break room but nothing about those who have an office or whether they might or might not take public transportation. Thus, the correct choice is answer B.
_________________

Not sure of the answer, but I went for A. My reasoning is this.

1. Everyone that travels on public transport (sufficient condition) ------->> Has lunch in break room (necessary condition)
2. Some who have offices (sufficient condition) ------->> Dont take public transport (necessary condition)

Now start validating each answer choice against above logic. A says "Some employees who do not have offices eat lunch in the company break room".

If we negate argument 2 (sufficient condition) i.e. some who do not have offices ------>> Take public transport
From argument 1 we know that Anyone of takes public transport ------->> must be eating in break room
This matches what option A says and hence was my answer.

I may be wrong but can we get some expert comments? GMATNinja nightblade354

In my opinion consider
X = employee
Y: public transport
Z: lunch at company break room

Now for conclusion consider
P: some employees
Q: own office
R : don’t take public transport

The only missing link is between p and z to conclude hence option b is correct

Posted from my mobile device

This official LSAT question is very confusing and seems just too hard, breaking all my confidence. I am not able to arrive at the assumption as stated in option B despite thinking for more than an hour. It will be really helpful if you can please elaborate, preferably with an example. Thank you in advance.

GMATNinja - Can you please guide? I'm not able to arrive at the assumption as stated in option B.

I am unable to figure out why it is necessary to assume "some employees who eat lunch in the company break room have an office". Even if no employee eats lunch in the company break room but has an office, we can still have employees who would not use public transport. All employees who have an office may not use public transport (only among those who are without an office we can have employees using public transport and employees not using public transport).

Hi Pankaj.

I did a little research and found that this question is not an official LSAT question but rather a low quality third-party question from a third-party practice test.

In other words, it appears to be a ridiculously busted question such that there's no actual rationale for the credited answer.

Thus, you don't need to worry about this question.
_________________

MartyTargetTestPrep
Wow! You would have no idea how relieved I am feeling after reading your post. I have been consistently thinking for the last 3 hours now that my "assumption" section needs re-study, as I have exhausted all OG practice questions. I often get trapped in the last two options, hence I thought of moving to LSAT 700 level questions for practice. Thank you so much for your efforts and response here.

Sure thing, Pankaj.

The question was bugging me as well.

Meanwhile, since you have run out of OG practice questions and often get trapped in the last two options, it sounds as if you are answering the questions too fast and not giving yourself time to learn. So, you may get some key insights that you could use to improve how you prepare for GMAT verbal from this post.

Three Key Practice Tips for Mastering GMAT Verbal
_________________