PrepTest 53, Section 3, Question 25

Difficulty:

Principle: Meetings should be kept short, addressing only those issues relevant to a majority of those attending. A person should not be required to attend a meeting if none of the issues to be addressed at the meeting are relevant to that person.

Application: Terry should not be required to attend today's two o'clock meeting.

Question

Which one of the following, if true, most justifies the stated application of the principle?

The only issues on which Terry could make a presentation at the meeting are issues irrelevant to at least a majority of those who could attend.

If Terry makes a presentation at the meeting, the meeting will not be kept short.

No issue relevant to Terry could be relevant to a majority of those attending the meeting.

If Terry attends the meeting a different set of issues will be relevant to a majority of those attending than if Terry does not attend.

The majority of the issues to be addressed at the meeting are not relevant to Terry.

Raise Hand ✋

Explanations

Rules for meetings

The passage starts off with some rules for meetings:

(1) Meetings should be short

(2) Meetings should only address issues relevant to more than half of the attendees

(3) Individuals' attendance shouldn't be required if the issues addressed at the meeting aren't relevant to them

Then we're told Terry shouldn't have to attend today's two o'clock meeting and asked to justify the decision to let Terry off the hook.

Since only the third rule deals with required attendance, we need an answer choice that points to the issues discussed in the meeting being irrelevant to Terry.

Let's go find it.

Nah. We didn't talk about circumstances involving presentations. Terry could still be required to attend.

Nope. This is a trap. First, this is conditional—we don't know whether or not Terry would make a presentation, even if Terry attends. Second, the issues covered might be relevant to Terry even if Terry doesn't present. That wouldn't require Terry to attend necessarily, but it wouldn't justify letting Terry off the hook for the meeting.

Yes, this works. If this is true, then there isn't a single thing relevant to Terry that would be relevant to more than half of the meeting attendees. This combines rules 1 and 3. Since we should only cover issues relevant to more than half of attendees, and since no such issue could be relevant to Terry, then the issues covered at today's meeting won't be relevant to Terry. Therefore, Terry's off the hook.

Nah. Like B, this is also conditional, but it's a condition that has no bearing on whether or not Terry's required to attend the meeting.

No way. Just because more than half of the issues won't be relevant to Terry doesn't mean at least one issue covered would be relevant. If even one is relevant, then we aren't justified in letting Terry off the hook.