Last visit was: 23 Apr 2026, 22:41 It is currently 23 Apr 2026, 22:41
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 23 Apr 2026
Posts: 109,802
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 105,868
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 109,802
Kudos: 810,890
 [37]
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
33
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 23 Apr 2026
Posts: 109,802
Own Kudos:
810,890
 [1]
Given Kudos: 105,868
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 109,802
Kudos: 810,890
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
HoneyLemon
User avatar
Stern School Moderator
Joined: 26 May 2020
Last visit: 02 Oct 2023
Posts: 627
Own Kudos:
571
 [2]
Given Kudos: 219
Status:Spirited
Concentration: General Management, Technology
WE:Analyst (Computer Software)
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
winterschool
User avatar
Verbal Chat Moderator
Joined: 20 Mar 2018
Last visit: 13 Apr 2026
Posts: 1,891
Own Kudos:
1,665
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1,681
Posts: 1,891
Kudos: 1,665
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Melinda can become a lawyer unless she does poorly on the LSAT or does not get a scholarship.

Which one of the following statements cannot be validly drawn from the above statements?


(A) Melinda is lawyer. So she must have both done well on the LSAT and gotten a scholarship. Incorrect

it may be possible

(B) Melinda is a lawyer and she did well on the LSAT. So she must have gotten a scholarship. Correct

it cant be possible, if Melinda did well on the LSAT or gotten a scholarship than she can admit to lawyer

(C) Melinda did poorly on the LSAT. So she will not become a lawyer. Incorrect

possible, if any point in the argument happen than she will not become a lawyer

(D) If Melinda does not become a lawyer, then she did poorly on the LSAT or could not get a scholarship. Incorrect

possible

(E) If Melinda does poorly on the LSAT and does not get a scholarship, then she will not become a lawyer. Incorrect

possible
User avatar
HoneyLemon
User avatar
Stern School Moderator
Joined: 26 May 2020
Last visit: 02 Oct 2023
Posts: 627
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 219
Status:Spirited
Concentration: General Management, Technology
WE:Analyst (Computer Software)
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
winterschool
Melinda can become a lawyer unless she does poorly on the LSAT or does not get a scholarship.

Which one of the following statements cannot be validly drawn from the above statements?


(A) Melinda is lawyer. So she must have both done well on the LSAT and gotten a scholarship. Incorrect

it may be possible

(B) Melinda is a lawyer and she did well on the LSAT. So she must have gotten a scholarship. Correct

it cant be possible, if Melinda did well on the LSAT or gotten a scholarship than she can admit to lawyer

(C) Melinda did poorly on the LSAT. So she will not become a lawyer. Incorrect

possible, if any point in the argument happen than she will not become a lawyer

(D) If Melinda does not become a lawyer, then she did poorly on the LSAT or could not get a scholarship. Incorrect

possible

(E) If Melinda does poorly on the LSAT and does not get a scholarship, then she will not become a lawyer. Incorrect

possible

winterschool

Melinda can become a lawyer unless she does poorly on the LSAT or does not get a scholarship

that means
Melinda can not become a lawyer if (she does poorly on the LSAT or does not get a scholarship )

i.e
Melinda will become a lawyer if (she does not poorly on the LSAT and does get a scholarship )

So in this logic
Melinda is a lawyer and she did well on the LSAT. So she must have gotten a scholarship.
We can infer this .. isn't it ?
May you please revert on the above logic ...
User avatar
winterschool
User avatar
Verbal Chat Moderator
Joined: 20 Mar 2018
Last visit: 13 Apr 2026
Posts: 1,891
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1,681
Posts: 1,891
Kudos: 1,665
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
HoneyLemon
winterschool
Melinda can become a lawyer unless she does poorly on the LSAT or does not get a scholarship.

Which one of the following statements cannot be validly drawn from the above statements?


(A) Melinda is lawyer. So she must have both done well on the LSAT and gotten a scholarship. Incorrect

it may be possible

(B) Melinda is a lawyer and she did well on the LSAT. So she must have gotten a scholarship. Correct

it cant be possible, if Melinda did well on the LSAT or gotten a scholarship than she can admit to lawyer

(C) Melinda did poorly on the LSAT. So she will not become a lawyer. Incorrect

possible, if any point in the argument happen than she will not become a lawyer

(D) If Melinda does not become a lawyer, then she did poorly on the LSAT or could not get a scholarship. Incorrect

possible

(E) If Melinda does poorly on the LSAT and does not get a scholarship, then she will not become a lawyer. Incorrect

possible

winterschool

Melinda can become a lawyer unless she does poorly on the LSAT or does not get a scholarship

that means
Melinda can not become a lawyer if (she does poorly on the LSAT or does not get a scholarship )

i.e
Melinda will become a lawyer if (she does not poorly on the LSAT and does get a scholarship )

So in this logic
Melinda is a lawyer and she did well on the LSAT. So she must have gotten a scholarship.
We can infer this .. isn't it ?
May you please revert on the above logic ...


HoneyLemon

I'm not sure about B. There is or present between two option. if she does any one, she will become lawyer.
so, both cant be needed but both can be happen. Based on this I choose B.
Between A & B any one can be right answer
avatar
PTibrewal
Joined: 19 Dec 2020
Last visit: 24 Apr 2022
Posts: 4
Given Kudos: 116
Location: India
Posts: 4
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi Brunnel

Can you please help me understand why A is not a correct answer and D is correct.
User avatar
HoneyLemon
User avatar
Stern School Moderator
Joined: 26 May 2020
Last visit: 02 Oct 2023
Posts: 627
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 219
Status:Spirited
Concentration: General Management, Technology
WE:Analyst (Computer Software)
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
HoneyLemon
Ans is D
Melinda can become a lawyer unless she does poorly on the LSAT or does not get a scholarship.

Which one of the following statements cannot be validly drawn from the above statements?


Sufficient Condition ------ >>> Necessary Condition

Melinda can become a lawyer --- > Unless she does poorly on the LSAT or does not get a scholarship.
A --> B



(A) Melinda is lawyer. So she must have both done well on the LSAT and gotten a scholarship.
A --> B .. Can be inferred

(B) Melinda is a lawyer and she did well on the LSAT. So she must have gotten a scholarship.
A --> B .. Can be inferred

(C) Melinda did poorly on the LSAT. So she will not become a lawyer.
B- --> A- .. Can be inferred

(D) If Melinda does not become a lawyer, then she did poorly on the LSAT or could not get a scholarship.
A- --> B .. Cannot be inferred
(E) If Melinda does poorly on the LSAT and does not get a scholarship, then she will not become a lawyer.
B- --> A- .. Can be inferred
Clear concepts of conditional reasoning with multiple necessary conditions embodied
User avatar
ravigupta2912
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 26 May 2019
Last visit: 16 Feb 2025
Posts: 717
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 84
Location: India
GMAT 1: 650 Q46 V34
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V40
GPA: 2.58
WE:Consulting (Consulting)
Products:
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
(A) Melinda is lawyer. So she must have both done well on the LSAT and gotten a scholarship. -- Incorrect. She only needs to satisfy one of the conditions to become a lawyer i.e. only one of the condition need not occur. In this choice, "both.. and" is used, which is contrary to the passage stem.

(B) Melinda is a lawyer and she did well on the LSAT. So she must have gotten a scholarship. -- Incorrect. Same as A.

(C) Melinda did poorly on the LSAT. So she will not become a lawyer. -- Incorrect. If she gets a scholarship, she can become a lawyer. She doesn't become a lawyer if either does not happen (poor performance on gmat OR no scholarship). In this case, she can still have scholarship and be a lawyer.

(D) If Melinda does not become a lawyer, then she did poorly on the LSAT or could not get a scholarship. -- Yes, true. "or" is the key word here.

(E) If Melinda does poorly on the LSAT and does not get a scholarship, then she will not become a lawyer. -- Eliminate. She need not satisfy both the conditions to be a lawyer.
User avatar
Green2k1
Joined: 06 Jun 2019
Last visit: 19 Aug 2024
Posts: 103
Own Kudos:
103
 [1]
Given Kudos: 48
Location: India
Concentration: International Business, Technology
Posts: 103
Kudos: 103
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The question is based on the necessary vs sufficient condition:

Necessary condition stated in the argument: does well the LSAT and get a scholarship, However the sufficient condition is not given.


Which one of the following statements cannot be validly drawn from the above statements?

(A) Melinda is lawyer. So she must have both done well on the LSAT and gotten a scholarship.
- As she is lawyer - therefore, all the conditions must have been full filled

(B) Melinda is a lawyer and she did well on the LSAT. So she must have gotten a scholarship.
- Same as A

(C) Melinda did poorly on the LSAT. So she will not become a lawyer.
- Here, she did not able to meet the necessary condition to become a lawyer. So she will not become lawyer

(D) If Melinda does not become a lawyer, then she did poorly on the LSAT or could not get a scholarship.
- Consider the case she did well on LSAT and also got Scholarship, but did not join the college
- The argument statement uses the word "CAN" - it is just showing the capability


(E) If Melinda does poorly on the LSAT and does not get a scholarship, then she will not become a lawyer.
- Same as C
User avatar
srik410
Joined: 07 Oct 2024
Last visit: 18 Feb 2026
Posts: 84
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 246
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT Focus 1: 685 Q90 V81 DI81 (Online)
GPA: 3.2
WE:General Management (Technology)
GMAT Focus 1: 685 Q90 V81 DI81 (Online)
Posts: 84
Kudos: 23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Can some expert dig into the usage of "unless" here? I use A unless B to mean not B-> A in the formal logic space. However, its clear that logic does not work here. I vaguely understand that this could also mean B -> not A(common sense usage). Why should I use this common sense if I got formal logic? Also, how can you tell if the question has this common sense usage such as the question under discussion?
User avatar
750rest
Joined: 27 Jul 2022
Last visit: 23 Apr 2026
Posts: 46
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1,126
Concentration: Marketing, Operations
Products:
Posts: 46
Kudos: 34
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
"if Melinda does well on the LSAT and gets a scholarship, then she can become a lawyer." Kindly check in question instesd of AND , OR is written.

By taking AND your justification is correct but i got stuck due to focusing on OR.

Bunuel


Official Explanation



This argument says that two things stand in Melinda’s way—performing poorly on the LSAT and not getting a scholarship. That is, if Melinda does well on the LSAT and gets a scholarship, then she can become a lawyer.

Since Melinda is a lawyer in choice (A), she must have overcome the two obstacles—the LSAT and the scholarship. Hence (A) is valid. This eliminates (A). Next, (B) essentially expresses the same thought as (A). This eliminates (B). Next, (C) says that Melinda didn’t meet one of the two criteria, so she won’t become a lawyer. Hence (C) is valid. This eliminates (C). You should notice that the conclusion in (D) is too strong. Melinda may do well on the LSAT and get a scholarship yet decide not to become a lawyer. The answer, therefore, is (D).
User avatar
miag
User avatar
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 10 Dec 2023
Last visit: 15 Feb 2026
Posts: 404
Own Kudos:
159
 [1]
Given Kudos: 737
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Sustainability
GMAT Focus 1: 675 Q87 V83 DI80
GPA: 3.2/4
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 675 Q87 V83 DI80
Posts: 404
Kudos: 159
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi,

I understand where you are coming from but the language is actually correct. I believe its the interpretation part you might be getting confused in!
The question basically states that Melinda can become a lawyer as long as:
- she doesn't do poorly on LSAT
- she doesn't get a scholarship

=> This basically implies that both these need to be not true for her to be a lawyer.

D) follows from this line of reasoning. Hope this helps!
750rest
"if Melinda does well on the LSAT and gets a scholarship, then she can become a lawyer." Kindly check in question instesd of AND , OR is written.

By taking AND your justification is correct but i got stuck due to focusing on OR.


Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7391 posts
501 posts
358 posts