PT 20 Section 3 Question 10

User avatar
wildflower88
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:18 am

PT 20 Section 3 Question 10

Postby wildflower88 » Sun Apr 10, 2011 8:25 am

hey everyone,

First time poster here who could really use some clarification regarding the question in the post title. I'm aiming for a 167 to 170 on the October 2011 LSAT. Can anyone here explain to me why for question 10 A (G is reduced) is a better answer choice than D (S is reduced)? I've looked at the question for over 15 minutes and still can't figure out where I went wrong!

TIA :)

User avatar
soj
Posts: 7735
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:10 pm

Re: PT 20 Section 3 Question 10

Postby soj » Sun Apr 10, 2011 9:09 am

According to Rule 4, exactly two of LMR must be reduced. The question says R is not reduced. Thus, L & M are reduced.

According to the contrapositive of Rule 3, because L is reduced, P is not reduced.

We now know two areas that are not reduced (P & R). There is exactly one more area that is not reduced, and that area must be N or S. Why? Because according to Rule 2, N and S cannot both be reduced.

Since R, P, and N/S are not reduced, G, L, M, W, and S/N are reduced. Thus, (A) is correct. Notice that GLMWN does not violate any rules, so you can be confident in eliminating (D).

Another quick way of eliminating (D) is by realizing right off the bat that N and S cannot both be reduced, and therefore, if (D) were correct, then (B) must also be correct. Since there can never be two correct answers, (D) is incorrect. Notice you cannot eliminate (B) for the same reason, however. To do so would be a Mistaken Reversal of the conditional statement above. Rule 2 alone does not prevent you from reducing neither N nor S. If this paragraph doesn't make sense to you, don't worry about it. Checking for ACs that imply each other is a useful but not necessary method in eliminating ACs.

User avatar
wildflower88
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:18 am

Re: PT 20 Section 3 Question 10

Postby wildflower88 » Sun Apr 10, 2011 9:37 am

Thanks SOJ! Totally makes sense to me now. For some reason I was only using N as an example of a variable that could be not represented.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brinicolec and 8 guests