PT 35 S3 LG 2 #12

User avatar
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
Posts: 7297
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
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: No registered users and 4 guests