Can you be in R and T without being in U?
I thought the answer is B, because one cannot be in R and be in exactly two areas (i.e. R and T). Did I envision this incorrectly? Is U just a mere part of the intersection of R and T, instead of being the whole intersection?
Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
3 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 8:43 pm
The set-up states that U has to be completely within R and T, but this doesn't necessarily mean that U has to cover the entire common area. For question 8, if K is in only 2 areas it has to be in R and T. It can't be in S because of J and it can't be in U because K would be covering three areas. With that in mind, J can't be in T because K is there.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests