PT 35 S3 LG 2 #12

User avatar
DrackedaryMaster
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 5:11 pm

PT 35 S3 LG 2 #12

Postby DrackedaryMaster » Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:23 pm

Okay, I've done all the LG sections in the three 3 10 books now, but this is the first time I can remember coming across a question like this. One in which it makes you think that a main rule is being suspended when in actuality your main diagram remains exactly the same thanks to some sneaky LSAC wording. Unfortunately, I fell for the trap of disassociating X&S reading the wording to mean that X and W had to be exactly the same without X having more features. It just says suppose they share exactly two features (which they already did in the first place).

Anybody know of other "fake" rule suspension questions?

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

Re: PT 35 S3 LG 2 #12

Postby 3|ink » Fri Aug 20, 2010 12:00 am

Nope. I loved this game. I love games like this one.

User avatar
LSAT Blog
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: PT 35 S3 LG 2 #12

Postby LSAT Blog » Fri Aug 20, 2010 10:22 am

It's not "fake" - it introduces ambiguity, which does alter the main diagram.

Instead of X being required to have all 3 (PLS), it's now required simply to have both P and L. It might have S, it might not have S. In other words, it might have 3 options (as it did before), but it could now have only 2 options instead.

I think you're focusing too much on the fact that X and W share exactly 2 options. What about the removal of the condition that X have more options than W?




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Blueprint Mithun, cantyoloforever, cherrygalore, Greenteachurro, hiltopp01, Instrumental, ltowns1, mintme, mrgstephe, ponderingmeerkat, Pozzo, Tazewell, Yahoo [Bot] and 14 guests