Prep Test 56 LG Question 20

BxBob0711
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 11:33 pm

Prep Test 56 LG Question 20

Postby BxBob0711 » Mon Dec 06, 2010 10:37 pm

20. The executives who visit the Homestead plant CANNOT be
A) Quinn and Vandercar Only
B) Rodriguez and Taylor Only
C) Sasada and Taylor Only
D) Quinn, Sasada, and Vandercar
E) Rodriguez, Sasada, and Taylor

The answer for the list question had Rodriguez and Sasada visiting the Homestead plant, so I figure cross off every option that has either of them in it which leaves (A)

Yet, the answer was (D) because the question was implying which executives can't visit the plant at the same time as each other. Why couldn't the question just state that. It seems to me the questions clearly states which executives can't visit the homestead plant under any circumstances. I know the people who make this test try to be tricky with their wording but sometimes it just seems retarded and frustrating :/

User avatar
suspicious android
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: Prep Test 56 LG Question 20

Postby suspicious android » Tue Dec 07, 2010 3:19 am

BxBob0711 wrote:Yet, the answer was (D) because the question was implying which executives can't visit the plant at the same time as each other. Why couldn't the question just state that. It seems to me the questions clearly states which executives can't visit the homestead plant under any circumstances. I know the people who make this test try to be tricky with their wording but sometimes it just seems retarded and frustrating :/


Annoying, but totally valid and fair question.

The statement you were thinking of would be: "The executives who visit the Homestead plant CANNOT be Quinn, Sasada, or Vandercar" which is very different in meaning from: "The executives who visit the Homestead plant CANNOT be Quinn, Sasada, and Vandercar".

This kind of obsession with punctuation, grammar and other nonsense doesn't sound like fun.. but well, that's part of being a lawyer, isn't it?

User avatar
Adelei
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:37 am

Re: Prep Test 56 LG Question 20

Postby Adelei » Tue Jan 04, 2011 1:42 am

I was specifically looking for help with this question myself and luckily found this thread before I made one of my own.

I just took PT 56 the other day. Up till now I have been working out of the older LSATs (10 of books) so this was my first "new" LSAT. I typically do not miss any questions on the Logic Games section, I consider it my strength (and my favorite section) but this particular game just gave me fits.

I was taken aback by this question because of its lack of specificity. Typically (at least in the older LSATs I've been taking), the questions are more direct. For instance, I would expect this question as it is currently worded, to be asking which executives cannot visit Homestead at any time. The answer to that question is none of them! (I worked out scenarios in which each executive can visit Homestead, though obviously not all at the same time.) That was my first interpretation of this question, but since "none" was not an option, I went with "which executives cannot visit Homestead at the same time as each other" and got it right.

However, as I said, prior to this all of the questions I've come across have directly stated what they are asking for. Based on my experience, I would have expected the question to be worded as "The executives who visit Homestead together CANNOT be".

Suspicious, your answer about the "and" vs. "or" makes sense, but are all of the newer LG questions as indirect and unspecific as this? I had several other problems on this game that I've worked out myself, but I just could not figure out why this question seems to be asking for one thing while supplying answers for a totally different question. (Who cannot go at all? vs. Which execs cannot go together?)

The LSAC clearly says that "the conditions are designed to be as clear as possible; do not interpret them as if they were intended to trick you." A tactic I rely on in logic games, one that typically helps me to score perfect in those sections, is to only answer the question that is asked and not add my own assumptions to it. However, it seems to go against this logic to place information that clarifies the question within the answers rather than within the question stem itself! Being forced to interpret the question based on something the answer choices say ("and" instead of "or") rather than just taking the question as it is written seems to go against what I've known of the LSAT up to this point.

Sorry for my mini-rant. To sum up - my question is, are all the newer LSAT games going to be this unspecific?

User avatar
TLSanders
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:24 am

Re: Prep Test 56 LG Question 20

Postby TLSanders » Tue Jan 04, 2011 1:49 am

I'm a little confused by the apparent general agreement that this is "non-specific". The distinction between "and" and "or" is clear and significant, both in logic games and in the real-life legal practice applications that rely on the same skills.

The lesson here isn't that they're going to be "tricky"--this isn't tricky. The point to learn is that precise language counts, and it pays to get used to the way it's typically used on the LSAT.

User avatar
DamnLSAT
Posts: 164
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 3:14 pm

Re: Prep Test 56 LG Question 20

Postby DamnLSAT » Tue Jan 04, 2011 2:05 am

TLSanders wrote:I'm a little confused by the apparent general agreement that this is "non-specific". The distinction between "and" and "or" is clear and significant, both in logic games and in the real-life legal practice applications that rely on the same skills.

The lesson here isn't that they're going to be "tricky"--this isn't tricky. The point to learn is that precise language counts, and it pays to get used to the way it's typically used on the LSAT.


I absolutely agree. The difference between one word such as "and" or "or" is utilized in all three sections. IMO, this skill is basic to understanding larger complexities of the exam.

User avatar
Adelei
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:37 am

Re: Prep Test 56 LG Question 20

Postby Adelei » Tue Jan 04, 2011 4:24 am

There is a clear difference between "and" and "or", however, neither of those words appeared in the question itself. My particular question was not about the answer choices, but about the question stem. The question stem does not contain distinguishing words such as "and" or "or", so discussing their significance or the distinction between the two does nothing to address why the question relied on the answer choices to clarify its meaning. Precise language does count - so why is this question so imprecise? I was under the impression that we use the question to choose the correct answer, not that we use the answer choices to clarify or influence our interpretation of the question so that we can then choose the right answer.

Oh and since we're all training our brains to think logically, telling me that the question stem is "specific" or "precise" because the answer choice includes precise language is like telling me that the mother grizzly bear is a male because the baby grizzly bear is a male. Or in other words, you are saying:

B is C. Therefore, A is C.

That logic obviously has some errors.

All I would like to know is whether to expect more questions like this on other newer tests, but if you think I'm just discussing the difference between "and" and "or" then I guess you wouldn't be able to help me with that.

benito
Posts: 321
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:09 pm

Re: Prep Test 56 LG Question 20

Postby benito » Tue Jan 04, 2011 2:04 pm

Just like every other time somebody brings up something about "new logic games" I find myself totally mystified as to what you people are talking about. How is this game different than any other grouping game with a sequencing component. Its certainly a tough game I'm not trying to say you should coast right through it but I have no idea why people insist on calling them new or different, its difficult but the same thing! For this question specifically I'm not sure why you guys are debating the and/or situation it doesn't seem to apply. All its asking is which one of the five answer choices (as a group) can NEVER visit homestead. There are three possible scenarios in the order of the plants its either MFH, FMH, or FHM....in the first two scenarios H is last so Q obviously can't be in Homestead because its last and Q has to be in front of both R and T....In the 3rd scenario Q can go to Homestead but only if S went first to Farmington that way V could either to Homestead or Morningside and R & T can both go to Morningside without violating any rules. Answer choice D puts S with Q and V so it does not work. All of the other answer choices can work for at least one of the three scenarios. There is nothing indirect, abstract, or unclear about it and there is certainly nothing "new" about it. There is a game just like this one in an LSAT from '97.

User avatar
suspicious android
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: Prep Test 56 LG Question 20

Postby suspicious android » Tue Jan 04, 2011 2:27 pm

Adelei wrote:All I would like to know is whether to expect more questions like this on other newer tests, but if you think I'm just discussing the difference between "and" and "or" then I guess you wouldn't be able to help me with that.


I think this thread might be spinning out of control soon. I'll try to stick to the questions you raised. First, as Benito mentioned, this is a somewhat common question type. I think you'll see something like it at least once every 2-3 years, both in the 90's and the 2000's. I can only think of one other offhand, but if you've ever done the game with taco trucks, pita trucks, falafel trucks, etc., that has a similar question. That's from June 2004, I think.

Secondly, I think you're not getting everything out of the question stem that you can. You don't need extra information from the answer choices to figure anything out. The question stem says:

"The executives who visit the Homestead plant CANNOT be"

This tells us simply that we're looking for a grouping of executives that must be false, that cannot happen. The four incorrect answer choices will be groups that could happen. So the criteria for the correct answer is clearly set out by the question stem, you just have to determine whether or not each answer choice fits that criteria.

User avatar
verklempt
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 6:59 pm

Re: Prep Test 56 LG Question 20

Postby verklempt » Tue Jan 04, 2011 3:10 pm

The question stem is ambiguous. We often see a similar stem used in a situation in which the answer is a list of names, but those names are not inferred to be a group. "Which executives could not be wearing blue?" would typically result in the names of multiple individuals who could not wear blue without any implication of grouping. So when I read this question stem, my immediate reaction is that we are looking for names of people who cannot visit the plant. Since none of the answers work, then I can only infer that the word "together" is implied in the stem.

Those of you who say that this is training for law, I disagree. In real life, lawyers do their best to use clear language, unless they are dishonest or trying to trick someone.

Anyway, LSAC could have done better with the wording. The question isn't so badly worded that it is a complete disaster, but it looks like a question that slipped through the screens and should have been modified to enhance clarity.

User avatar
suspicious android
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: Prep Test 56 LG Question 20

Postby suspicious android » Tue Jan 04, 2011 3:39 pm

verklempt wrote:Anyway, LSAC could have done better with the wording. The question isn't so badly worded that it is a complete disaster, but it looks like a question that slipped through the screens and should have been modified to enhance clarity.


They could have done better, they could have made it clearer, they could write it so that no one would possibly make a mistake when answering it. That's not what they're trying to do. The question is fine, it's just more difficult than it might have been if written otherwise.

Also, your example of "Which executives could not be wearing blue?" isn't analogous, you changed the wording, that would be a different question from this game.

benito
Posts: 321
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:09 pm

Re: Prep Test 56 LG Question 20

Postby benito » Tue Jan 04, 2011 5:33 pm

verklempt wrote:The question stem is ambiguous. We often see a similar stem used in a situation in which the answer is a list of names, but those names are not inferred to be a group. "Which executives could not be wearing blue?" would typically result in the names of multiple individuals who could not wear blue without any implication of grouping. So when I read this question stem, my immediate reaction is that we are looking for names of people who cannot visit the plant. Since none of the answers work, then I can only infer that the word "together" is implied in the stem.

Those of you who say that this is training for law, I disagree. In real life, lawyers do their best to use clear language, unless they are dishonest or trying to trick someone.

Anyway, LSAC could have done better with the wording. The question isn't so badly worded that it is a complete disaster, but it looks like a question that slipped through the screens and should have been modified to enhance clarity.



Sorry but the problem is not the ambiguity of the question, its the aptitude of the reader. Your analogy proves the question accomplishes exactly what LSAC intends to with these type of problems. If you thought it was asking the equivalent of "Which executives could not be wearing blue" you misinterpreted it, and catching people who make that kind of error is precisely the intention of the question. Although it is part of a lawyer's job to accurately interpret language that can be unclear, this is not even an example of that. Its straightforward.

User avatar
verklempt
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 6:59 pm

Re: Prep Test 56 LG Question 20

Postby verklempt » Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:35 pm

The criticisms directed at me are almost amusing in that they reflect a misunderstanding of the comment I was making and thus illustrate the original problem! I was not trying to create an analogy but rather to point out that in many cases, when lists of names appear as possible responses, those names are disjunctive rather than conjunctive. You were confused because I referred to executives, as does the question. I should not have done that, I realize in retrospect, but should have chosen an example that was sufficiently different so as not to appear to be a restatement of the original question stem.

And therein lies the conundrum.

One of the rules governing the logic games universe is that all the information you need is presented in the setup and question stems. In this case, a word is missing. Doesn't mean you can't get the right answer -- you can -- but you do have to make an assumption that is outside the scope of the information given. LSAC doesn't usually make those kinds of mistakes, and it appears that in this game they did.

User avatar
Adelei
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:37 am

Re: Prep Test 56 LG Question 20

Postby Adelei » Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:49 pm

I would just like to point out, for what it's worth, that this particular question and its wording (however you might see it) is NOT the type of question that would "trick" the reader into choosing an answer that is incorrect. For instance, sometimes you can misread a question and find an answer choice that answers what you think the question is asking for. That is not the case here. So it's not the type of question that relies on the "aptitude of the reader" to choose the correct choice and not be tempted by answers that merely appear to be correct.

In this case, the question can be interpreted in two different ways. In order for the LSAT test makers to specifically be trying to test the "aptitude of the reader" in this situation, they would have needed to write the question in such a way that it could be misinterpreted to mean something different, then include an answer that would be the correct answer for the misinterpreted question. They did not do that here. The other interpretation of "which executives can never visit Homestead" would be answered by "none" or "all are able to visit Homestead at some point". Therefore they were NOT attempting to test the aptitude of the reader with this question, but were simply testing the test taker's grouping ability (with a badly worded question, IMO.)

User avatar
suspicious android
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: Prep Test 56 LG Question 20

Postby suspicious android » Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:54 pm

Adelei wrote:In this case, the question can be interpreted in two different ways.


You can interpret it a hundred different ways, but only one is accurate.

benito
Posts: 321
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:09 pm

Re: Prep Test 56 LG Question 20

Postby benito » Wed Jan 05, 2011 1:19 am

verklempt wrote:The criticisms directed at me are almost amusing in that they reflect a misunderstanding of the comment I was making and thus illustrate the original problem! I was not trying to create an analogy but rather to point out that in many cases, when lists of names appear as possible responses, those names are disjunctive rather than conjunctive. You were confused because I referred to executives, as does the question. I should not have done that, I realize in retrospect, but should have chosen an example that was sufficiently different so as not to appear to be a restatement of the original question stem.

And therein lies the conundrum.

One of the rules governing the logic games universe is that all the information you need is presented in the setup and question stems. In this case, a word is missing. Doesn't mean you can't get the right answer -- you can -- but you do have to make an assumption that is outside the scope of the information given. LSAC doesn't usually make those kinds of mistakes, and it appears that in this game they did.



You're right, I read over what you wrote before and I did misunderstand you sorry bout that. But I still disagree with you and Adelei about the question, its not unclear and there aren't two ways to interpret it. The fact that it isn't written with the intention of tricking anyone doesn't mean they aren't testing your ability to accurately comprehend the question. And the fact that you did not accurately comprehend the question does not make it flawed. Out of the following answer choices which can't go to Homestead, thats exactly what it says and exactly what the questions asking. Whats missing?




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bigv, dontsaywhatyoumean, jdanz, Leliana, Macallan, ngogirl12, Pozzo and 14 guests