PT 58 LG #12

User avatar
rso11
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:25 pm

PT 58 LG #12

Postby rso11 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 2:12 pm

Hey all! Oct LSAT is right around the corner and I've been reviewing the most recent PTs. Can someone help me out with the question listed above? This is my second time around doing PT 58 and I remember not being able to get this one the first time either. I feel like I'm probably missing something big because the only answer I can eliminate is A. It violates one of the rules - as to the others, I don't see why you can't have those volunteer combinations. Many thanks, and good luck to all fellow October takers!

KaplanLSATInstructor
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:53 pm

Re: PT 58 LG #12

Postby KaplanLSATInstructor » Wed Oct 06, 2010 2:39 pm

I think you're misreading the question. The question is looking for a pair of people in which at least one of the two MUST volunteer. In other words, given a pair of people: if one person doesn't volunteer, then the other one has to.

For example, take a look at (A): F and T. If F doesn't volunteer, does T have to? No. They could both be left out. So this isn't the answer.

However, take a look at (B): L and M. If L doesn't volunteer, does M have to? Yes! After all, by the fourth rule, if L doesn't volunteer, then R does. And, by the first rule, if R does, so does M.

In contrapositive, what if M doesn't volunteer? Then, the first rule eliminates R from volunteering. Then, by the fourth rule, L would have to volunteer.

In short: if you don't have L, you have to have M. If you don't have M, you have to have L. You need at least one of them, which is what the question is looking for.

HTH

- Chris

User avatar
rso11
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:25 pm

Re: PT 58 LG #12

Postby rso11 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 2:43 pm

Oh! Wow. You're right - I totally misunderstood the question. (Twice! :shock:) Thanks a lot!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexandros, SunDevil14, VMars and 10 guests