[Is it required to consider Yolanda's conversation while attempting this Q?
Quote:
(E) There could be universities that have no alcohol problems
There are no universities that have no alcohol problems. So Sally is basically day-dreaming
and conclusion ie - Fraternities cause alcohol issues - falls apart.[/quote]
, you've got it!
Sally wants to transfer to a university where there are no fraternities to avoid alcohol problems. But if there are NO universities WITHOUT alcohol problems, she can never get what she wants. In other words, there will be no satisfactory university to which she can transfer. (Unrelated: this question is making me thirsty.)
You're also correct in realizing that Yolanda's argument does not impact the assumption. There are two questions about this passage in the LSAT PrepTest, and Yolanda's argument is relevant to the other question.[/quote]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many Thanks for the explanation
GMATNinja !!
But for questions like these (conversational format) do we even look at the second or first conversation if the question directly refers to a specific conversation (1st (Sally's) here). Should we go ahead and answer the question by referring to the conversation specified in the question itself or is it still advisable to go through the 2nd (other) conversation ?
Please can you shed some light on above ?
Thanks
Saurabh