PT40 Sec. 2 #17 (Games)

2011Law
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:40 pm

PT40 Sec. 2 #17 (Games)

Postby 2011Law » Fri Oct 29, 2010 6:31 pm

For the love of god I do not understand this one. I'm doing fine on the more recent games, but this question is taunting me. Please help.

2011Law
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:40 pm

Re: PT40 Sec. 2 #17 (Games)

Postby 2011Law » Fri Oct 29, 2010 6:55 pm

Is everyone too busy hitting the refresh button waiting for scores?

Hedwig
Posts: 835
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:56 am

Re: PT40 Sec. 2 #17 (Games)

Postby Hedwig » Fri Oct 29, 2010 6:56 pm

Ask again later.

Manhattan LSAT Noah
Posts: 746
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:43 am

Re: PT40 Sec. 2 #17 (Games)

Postby Manhattan LSAT Noah » Sat Oct 30, 2010 8:42 am

There's a discussion of the game here: http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/pre ... g-f35.html

2011Law
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:40 pm

Re: PT40 Sec. 2 #17 (Games)

Postby 2011Law » Tue Nov 02, 2010 9:30 pm

Manhattan LSAT Noah wrote:There's a discussion of the game here: http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/pre ... g-f35.html


Thanks for pointing me in the right direction... fml I'm dumb. On the upside, Andrew Shrivell has given me inspiration that even dumb people can get anywhere in life.

2011Law
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:40 pm

Re: PT40 Sec. 2 #17 (Games)

Postby 2011Law » Tue Nov 02, 2010 9:31 pm

Also, hey eit. lol

jlhero
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:52 pm

Re: PT40 Sec. 2 #17 (Games)

Postby jlhero » Tue Nov 02, 2010 11:28 pm

all hard lg's have a very important inference.

i just did this game today, the key inference is that Vancouver can pair with all 4 others. and only by doing this we can know what is the maximum # of pairs.

i think the only hard question in this game is 16, 17 shouldnt be hard

2011Law
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:40 pm

Re: PT40 Sec. 2 #17 (Games)

Postby 2011Law » Tue Nov 02, 2010 11:43 pm

jlhero wrote:i just did this game today, the key inference is that Vancouver can pair with all 4 others. and only by doing this we can know what is the maximum # of pairs.


When Vancouver is paired with the four other cities, then you only have four pairs of cities connected, not five as is the maximum (which I got from doing #12). I think the only question that inference helps with (but is key for) is 17.

jlhero
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:52 pm

Re: PT40 Sec. 2 #17 (Games)

Postby jlhero » Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:03 am

no...... you need to also consider that TP is the only pair left possible. so the max is 5

2011Law
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:40 pm

Re: PT40 Sec. 2 #17 (Games)

Postby 2011Law » Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:09 am

jlhero wrote:no...... you need to also consider that TP is the only pair left possible. so the max is 5


The max is five, like I said, which you get by doing #12. But when V is connected with T P H and M, T and P cannot be connected, as per the last rule, hence there are only four connections with 17.

/thread

jlhero
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:52 pm

Re: PT40 Sec. 2 #17 (Games)

Postby jlhero » Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:16 am

ya, i must have remembered something wrong.

but my point is, by noticing that Vancouver is able to pair with all others, i pretty much answered all questions easily.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tazewell and 5 guests