medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A law firm's conflict-of-interest policy contains two rules. Rule 1: whenever partner X is staffed on a case, associate Y must also be staffed on that case. Rule 2: whenever partner Z is staffed on a case, associate Y must not be staffed on that case.
What can be properly concluded about the relationship between partner X and partner Z?
- On any given case, either X or Z must be staffed.
- Whenever X is staffed on a case, Z must be staffed on it as well.
- The two partners can never appear together on a single case.
- X may be staffed on a case only when Z is also staffed on it.
- Associate Y is staffed on every case that has at least one partner.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these statements?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these premises?
- Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the authors' conclusion?
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ