## Conditional Question regarding games

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
e10

Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 12:03 am

### Conditional Question regarding games

I want to make sure I have this right:

If L, then not K

L-->/K

Contra:

K-->/L

So, if there is one then there cannot be the other. However, it is possible that both can be out.

/L-->K

Conta:

/K-->L

This means that one has to be in or both can be in, but both cannot be out

/L-->/K

Contra:

K-->L

What does that tell you?

LSAT Blog

Posts: 1257
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:24 pm

### Re: Conditional Question regarding games

Your understanding is solid. This is a difficult issue that most people struggle with at some point, but you've got it down.

With regard to your other question,

/L-->/K

Contra:

K-->L

if we have K, then we have L. So if we lack L, we must also lack K.

We could have neither of the two, have L only, or have both K and L. However, we can't have K without also having L (because K requires L).

All good?

Jeffort

Posts: 1888
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:43 pm

### Re: Conditional Question regarding games

e10 wrote:I want to make sure I have this right:

If L, then not K

L-->/K

Contra:

K-->/L

So, if there is one then there cannot be the other. However, it is possible that both can be out.

/L-->K

Conta:

/K-->L

This means that one has to be in or both can be in, but both cannot be out

/L-->/K

Contra:

K-->L

What does that tell you?

You have it correct with them. 1st one establishes that L & K are mutually exclusive with each other, cannot have both but can have neither. 2nd one establishes an either/or situation where you have to have at least one of them and can have both of them if no other restrictions prohibit both.

The last one is just what it is: K ---> L as well as the contrapositive which you started off with.