Top Law Schools

How do you guys normally approach the type of questions in LG, usually (actually I think every time) they are found as the last question in a particular game. They sound something like:

"Which rule, if replaced "P > Q" would have the same effect?"


Generally I find that there is some underlying inference that they are looking for, but sometimes they use that to bait you. For example if we had known "P > Q" and also "PT", then the inference would be a simple "PT > Q". I generally look for an answer that would say something like "T> Q" because then we know combined with the given "PT" rule that "P > Q" must be true as well, and thus it works as a useful work around.

I just did LG from PT66 last night... I was thinking of this issue too.

#11 from 66

I eliminated wrong answers that did not seem to have an impact on where restaurants could be placed.

Then I test the rules to see if they make the original rule false. I do one hypo to see if I can purposely break the old rule with new rule. Usually I don't find myself needing to do this for each answer choice, usually only 2 to 3 ACs left.

Similar to PT65 LG #23 - I tested the two answer choices of B and C because I could see from prior work/hypos that the others were still possible and could easily eliminate those.

Yeah, I still get most of these wrong. But, eliminate the obvious outers (like mistaken reversal or negation of conditionals, etc.) and ones that don't involve any of the elements that are included in the first rule (most likely wrong unless there are major space limitations). Then you have maybe 2-3 contenders. The correct AC has to be EXACTLY as restrictive as the original rule to have the same effect.

Apparently the three ways a correct AC can appear are:

1. Rewording: like in the television show game in which the hour long show could only start on the hour - which is the same as the correct AC that it must be the 1st, 3rd or 5th show to air.

2. Direct inference: like if the original rule was P-K-L and KT was another (unmentioned rule in the question) then T between P and L would be correct.

3. Indirect inference: the hardest, could possibly use elements that aren't included in the original rule at all, could be very vague or abstract but I think these are pretty rare.

you can find an essay on these equivalent rules here (really a version of a chapter in our new LG book)...http://www.manhattanlsat.com/training-center.cfm

I hope that's helpful.

Post removed.

Manhattan LSAT Noah wrote:you can find an essay on these equivalent rules here (really a version of a chapter in our new LG book)...http://www.manhattanlsat.com/training-center.cfm

I hope that's helpful.

thanks noah (I have seen many of your explanations on the Manhattan site!) but where on that page is the essay you are referring to? I may just be inadequate and can't see it lol.

I hate those. I think if I get a question like that tomorrow I'm going to skip it and come back to it at the end. I don't think fast enough to be able to check test all five of them.

Actually wouldn't it be better to just guess and possibly concede those replacement question(s) and give yourself more time to make sure you get every other question right for logic games?

DaRascal wrote:Actually wouldn't it be better to just guess and possibly concede those replacement question(s) and give yourself more time to make sure you get every other question right for logic games?

I am going to give ti slightly longer than I give the other questions, but if I am not getting it I am guessing frmo what I have then coming back to it at end. THe key though is to capitalize time, at least eliminate 1 or 2 answers through a quick hypo to make the odds better.

I should say though I am aiming for a -0 LG so I will be moer inclined to spend that extra minute than say the next guy.

Br3v wrote:

Manhattan LSAT Noah wrote:you can find an essay on these equivalent rules here (really a version of a chapter in our new LG book)...http://www.manhattanlsat.com/training-center.cfm

I hope that's helpful.

thanks noah (I have seen many of your explanations on the Manhattan site!) but where on that page is the essay you are referring to? I may just be inadequate and can't see it lol.

Talking about inadequate, I'd love to post a screenshot but can't figure out how in this moment.

Anyway, it's in the third group of resources down ("Dive In!") and it's called "Rule Equivalency Bonus Chapter"

Find it?

This is definitely not the BEST way to do this but I usually am in a time crunch by the end and I'm not smart enough to intuitively attack these questions. But my strategy is quite simple:

When I plug and chug I box all of the acceptable results as they fit with the rules. The ones that don't work I scratch out. By the time I get to the end I have several hypotheticals all boxed up and sitting pretty. I then look at the final question, write out each rule and see if any of the hypotheticals violate these new rules. So far I've been very lucky and always have been able to eliminate all wrong ACs. As an added bonus this only takes as long as it takes to answer the first question too (15-30 seconds).

Manhattan LSAT Noah wrote:

Br3v wrote:

Manhattan LSAT Noah wrote:you can find an essay on these equivalent rules here (really a version of a chapter in our new LG book)...http://www.manhattanlsat.com/training-center.cfm

I hope that's helpful.

thanks noah (I have seen many of your explanations on the Manhattan site!) but where on that page is the essay you are referring to? I may just be inadequate and can't see it lol.

Talking about inadequate, I'd love to post a screenshot but can't figure out how in this moment.

Anyway, it's in the third group of resources down ("Dive In!") and it's called "Rule Equivalency Bonus Chapter"

Find it?

http://www.manhattanlsat.com/download/E ... 111106.pdf