All cattle ranchers dislike long winters. All ski resort owners like

Question

All cattle ranchers dislike long winters.
All ski resort owners like long winters because long winters mean increased profits.
Some lawyers are cattle ranchers.

Which one of the following statements, if true, and added to those above, most supports the conclusion that no ski resort owners are lawyers?

(A) Some cattle ranchers are lawyers.
(B) Some people who dislike long winters are not cattle ranchers.
(C) All lawyers are cattle ranchers.
(D) All people who dislike long winters are cattle ranchers.
(E) All people with increasing profits own ski resorts.

DinoPen · Answer

I chose C)
 All lawyers are cattle ranchers 
All cattle ranchers dislike long winters. (Lawyers dislike winters)
All ski resort owners like long winters (cattle ranchers are not ski resort owners due to the likes and dislikes of winters)
Therefore, lawyers don't own ski resorts (since all of them are cattle ranchers)

savwildeye · Answer

Manhattan Explanation 
I would suggest diagramming this one. It doesn't take long, and when you see simple conditional statements like these, it's a great idea.

Notice we have no conclusion. Only 3 statements:

cattle rancher --> ~like long winter
resort owner --> like long winter
some lawyers --> cattle ranchers

Then the question stem adds this conclusion:
resort owner --> ~lawyer

Now what we have is essentially a sufficient assumption question. Our job is to connect the dots in such a way that the conclusion given in the question stem is made correct.

The only way we can prove that resort owners are definitely not lawyers is to somehow prove that lawyers do NOT like long winters.

Something like "no lawyers like long winters" would do this:
lawyer --> ~like long winter.

Given that this is the LSAT, things are unlikely to be so simple when the test-writers could add one extra step. That extra step is to use "cattle ranchers" as a middle-man between lawyers and winters.

Just as "no lawyers like long winters" would suffice, so would "no lawyers is a cattle rancher," because this arrives at the same result:
lawyer --> cattle rancher --> ~like long winters

This is exactly what C does, and none of the others comes close.

As a quick elimination game, we could've eliminated every choice that did not contain either "lawyers and long winters" or "lawyers and cattle ranchers". This alone would've gotten us to A and C. Then, as timmy pointed out, we'd have to choose C because the argument already gave us A ("some" is a two-way street; if we know some A are B, then we know that some B are A).

MV94 · Answer

Can a correct answer contradict details given in the passage? I see the last line says some lawyers are cattle ranchers. I would consider some and all to be mutually exclusive ways of describing a portion of a group (ie some and all are two different proportions)

Posted from my mobile device

Posted from my mobile device

CEdward · Answer

C is correct because it absolutely ensures that there are no lawyers who own a ski resort (by virtue of the fact that they are all cattle ranchers and cattle ranchers don't like long winters)

All cattle ranchers dislike long winters.
All ski resort owners like long winters because long winters mean increased profits.
Some lawyers are cattle ranchers.

Which one of the following statements, if true, and added to those above, most supports the conclusion that no ski resort owners are lawyers?

(A) Some cattle ranchers are lawyers.
-repeat of what we already know...if some lawyers are cattle ranchers, then it follows that some cattle ranchers are lawyers
(B) Some people who dislike long winters are not cattle ranchers.
-OK, that's fine, but this doesn't do what C) does, which is rule out the possibility that a lawyer is also a ski resort owner
(C) All lawyers are cattle ranchers. CORRECT
(D) All people who dislike long winters are cattle ranchers.
-doesn't have to be true, nor does this serve the purpose that C) does
(E) All people with increasing profits own ski resorts.
-again, an extreme choice, irrelevant

CEdward · Answer

A correct choice will never contract the details in the passage. The passage as presented is perfectly fine.

All of the cattle ranchers includes the subset of individuals who are lawyers too.

Krish13tss · Answer

Does this kind of questions comes on gmat exam?

onlyPlanA · Answer

I agree with  MV94 . If it was given:

"  Some cattle ranchers are lawyers.  "

then  CEdward , your statement holds true that " All of the cattle ranchers includes the subset of individuals who are lawyers too ".

BUT, it is given that:

"  Some lawyers are cattle ranchers.  " In this case, some lawyers are definitely the subset of cattle ranchers, but not ALL lawyers???

AllisonBell · Answer

Former LSAT, current GMAT teacher here to weigh in!

This question really reads like an LSAT question. On standardized tests,  some  literally means  more than zero . It could be  up to and including  all  .

The way I think about this is  the statements given are based on knowledge that may be incomplete.  If I go to a party, and I talk to three people, and they are all lawyers, I could say “Some people here are lawyers.”

But it’s possible that they’re  all  lawyers! I haven’t talked to everyone.

So, while in common sense, everyday language, we don’t generally interchange  some  and  all,  for a problem on the GMAT, these don’t contradict each other.  Think of the “all” statement as providing new, clarifying information on what exactly was meant by “some.”

Side note — sometimes these kind of rules are super annoying and not intuitive.  I find it most helpful to just think of it as “learning how the test writers think”  so that I can focus on what will help me get this kind of question right, rather than lose myself in the tempting battle to argue why the answer’s wrong.

For more practice CR questions and explanations, check out ManhattanPrep’s   Free Starter Kit and Question Bank  .

Best,

guddo · Answer

All cattle ranchers dislike long winters. 
 
All ski resort owners like long winters because long winters mean increased profits.
 
 Some lawyers are cattle ranchers.
 
 Which one of the following statements, if true, and added to those above, most supports the conclusion that no ski resort owners are lawyers?

We need to prove that ski resort owners and lawyers do not overlap.  The key link  would be: all lawyers are cattle ranchers, and all cattle ranchers dislike long winters. Since ski resort owners like long winters, that makes lawyers and ski resort owners fall on  opposite sides .

(A) Some cattle ranchers are lawyers.

This is already stated in the passage. It does not help prove that no ski resort owners are lawyers.

(B) Some people who dislike long winters are not cattle ranchers.

This is irrelevant. It tells us about some non-ranchers who dislike long winters, but nothing about lawyers or ski resort owners.

(C) All lawyers are cattle ranchers.

This is correct. If all lawyers are cattle ranchers, then all lawyers dislike long winters. Since all ski resort owners like long winters, this strongly supports the conclusion that no ski resort owners are lawyers.

(D) All people who dislike long winters are cattle ranchers.

This does not help enough. It does not tell us that lawyers dislike long winters or that lawyers are cattle ranchers.

(E) All people with increasing profits own ski resorts.

This is irrelevant. The argument is about whether ski resort owners can be lawyers, not about who owns ski resorts because of increasing profits.

Answer: (C)

egmat · Answer

Hi onlyPlanA,

You're actually right, and your instinct here is sharper than the wording you're reacting to.

Let's separate two different claims, because CEdward's line -  "All of the cattle ranchers includes the subset of individuals who are lawyers too"  - was loosely phrased and is what's tripping you up.

What "some" really tells us.  The statement  "Some lawyers are cattle ranchers"  means exactly one thing: the two groups  overlap  - there is at least one person who is both. And "some" is a  two-way street :  "Some lawyers are cattle ranchers"  and  "Some cattle ranchers are lawyers"  say the identical thing. That's the only claim answer (A) makes, which is why (A) just restates given info.

But - and this is your point - it does NOT mean  all  lawyers are cattle ranchers.  You're completely correct. "Some" leaves open that there are other lawyers who are  not  cattle ranchers, and those lawyers could love long winters and own ski resorts. So the given premises alone can't guarantee "no ski resort owner is a lawyer."

That gap is exactly why (C) is the answer.  (C) upgrades "some" to  "All lawyers are cattle ranchers."  Only then is  every  lawyer forced into the "dislikes long winters" group - which slams the door on any lawyer being a winter-loving ski resort owner. Your worry ("but not ALL lawyers???") is precisely the hole that (C) plugs.

Quick check to lock it in - watch one word turn: 
-  Some  dogs are brown - could there be a black dog?  Yes. 
-  All  dogs are brown - could there be a black dog?  No.

Same move here: only the "all" version forces every lawyer into the ranchers' camp. You had it right the whole time.

Answer: C

All cattle ranchers dislike long winters. All ski resort owners like

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

All cattle ranchers dislike long winters. All ski resort owners like

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards