PT 58 LG #12
 rso11
 Posts: 126
 Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:25 pm
PT 58 LG #12
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!

 Posts: 53
 Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:53 pm
Re: PT 58 LG #12
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
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
 rso11
 Posts: 126
 Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:25 pm
Re: PT 58 LG #12
Oh! Wow. You're right  I totally misunderstood the question. (Twice! ) Thanks a lot!