PT 32, Game 3: Help with second condition.

dcs24
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:40 pm

PT 32, Game 3: Help with second condition.

Postby dcs24 » Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:57 am

I'm having some difficulty with diagraming this game. I thought I had it, then got to question 14 and realized I must have misunderstood the second condition.

Here is how I have the game written out:

TF _ _ > R
or
RT _ _ > F

P > S

S_O / O_S

Can someone tell me why my diagram for TF/RT _ _ >R/F is wrong?

User avatar
3|ink
Posts: 7331
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: PT 32, Game 3: Help with second condition.

Postby 3|ink » Tue Aug 03, 2010 11:04 am

dcs24 wrote:I'm having some difficulty with diagraming this game. I thought I had it, then got to question 14 and realized I must have misunderstood the second condition.

Here is how I have the game written out:

TF _ _ > R
or
RT _ _ > F

P > S

S_O / O_S

Can someone tell me why my diagram for TF/RT _ _ >R/F is wrong?


Because you don't know for certain that there are two spaces between. The indented rule says 'at least'.

dcs24
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:40 pm

Re: PT 32, Game 3: Help with second condition.

Postby dcs24 » Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:22 pm

3|ink wrote:
dcs24 wrote:I'm having some difficulty with diagraming this game. I thought I had it, then got to question 14 and realized I must have misunderstood the second condition.

Here is how I have the game written out:

TF _ _ > R
or
RT _ _ > F

P > S

S_O / O_S

Can someone tell me why my diagram for TF/RT _ _ >R/F is wrong?


Because you don't know for certain that there are two spaces between. The indented rule says 'at least'.


Q14 I came up with this:

1
2
3
4
5 T
6 F
7
8


This doesn't make sense, because according to rule two, it has to be one of the following: TF _ _ > R (with only 2 spaces left, this is impossible)
or it has to be: RT _ _ > F (if you put R in 4, there need to be at least 2 spaces before F, but F is already 6.)

I do understand there are at least 2 spaces, not necessarily 2 spaces. I wasn't sure how to diagram this, so I showed the minimum. I think my problem was assuming there were only 2 possibilities for condition two, when there are really four, I think?

User avatar
3|ink
Posts: 7331
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: PT 32, Game 3: Help with second condition.

Postby 3|ink » Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:43 pm

Here's the deal.

If T is in 5, we know O is in 1 (indented rule 3). If F is in 6, we know R must be in 2 or 3. R can't be in 7 or 8, but I think you have already deduced that. We know that S can't be in 2 because there must be at least one space between S and O. Moreover, we have to fit P somewhere before S. Therefore, S's possibilities with these deductions are spaces 3, 4 and 7 (8=L/H per indented rule).

Space 3 - S can't go in 3 because it'd look like this:

O_S_TF_ _ _

R would have to go in 2. If R goes in 2, P wouldn't be able to come before S.

Space 4 - S can go in 4. It'd look like this:

O P/R R/P S T F _ _ H/L

Space 7 - S can go in 7 for the same reason it can go in 4.

User avatar
3|ink
Posts: 7331
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: PT 32, Game 3: Help with second condition.

Postby 3|ink » Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:46 pm

dcs24 wrote:
3|ink wrote:
dcs24 wrote:I'm having some difficulty with diagraming this game. I thought I had it, then got to question 14 and realized I must have misunderstood the second condition.

Here is how I have the game written out:

TF _ _ > R
or
RT _ _ > F

P > S

S_O / O_S

Can someone tell me why my diagram for TF/RT _ _ >R/F is wrong?


Because you don't know for certain that there are two spaces between. The indented rule says 'at least'.


Q14 I came up with this:

1
2
3
4
5 T
6 F
7
8


This doesn't make sense, because according to rule two, it has to be one of the following: TF _ _ > R (with only 2 spaces left, this is impossible)
or it has to be: RT _ _ > F (if you put R in 4, there need to be at least 2 spaces before F, but F is already 6.)

I do understand there are at least 2 spaces, not necessarily 2 spaces. I wasn't sure how to diagram this, so I showed the minimum. I think my problem was assuming there were only 2 possibilities for condition two, when there are really four, I think?


I see the problem. You misread rule 1. It says "either". Therefore, if T is performed before F, R does not have to come after them. If T is performed after R, F does not have to come after them. Moreover, rule 2 says that R can come before F or vice versa.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexandros, Back2California, Baidu [Spider], batlaw, bcapace, HokieHi307, Instrumental, mrgstephe, Pozzo and 18 guests