- Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:05 pm
#73418
Hey Naj, the purpose of that diagram was to show the idea that IF Cecile was required to disclose, THEN she was either authorized to disburse funds OR she sits on the board of a petrochemical company. But we know that she does not meet either of those necessary conditions - she is neither authorized to disburse funds nor on the board of such a company - which triggers the contrapositive, and proves that she is not required by her association to disclose her investments. The diagram is not contradicting the stimulus, but is reflecting the conditional rules of the stimulus and then applying the facts to those rules. Make sense?
A valid conclusion here, based on that contrapositive, would have been that she is not required to disclosed her investments. Where the author went wrong was in leaping from "not required by her association" to "no reason to disclose." Maybe there are other reasons, even when not required?
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at
https://twitter.com/LSATadam