PT #20, Section 3, Q# 11

User avatar
Dr. Dre
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:10 pm

PT #20, Section 3, Q# 11

Postby Dr. Dre » Fri Jun 07, 2013 1:03 pm

For this question, I was able to cross out answer choices (A), (B), (E). But got stuck Between answer choices (C) and (D). The reason I was stuck was because I did not understand a section of the question:

...which one of the following is a pair of areas neither of which could be reduced


(C) L, N
(D) L, P

After putting M and R in the reduce group (and inferring that W follows), I was able to infer that L and N could not both be in the reduce group. I would have easily picked (C), but then I looked at rule #3, and realized that both L and P cannot both be in the reduced group, so I got stuck. Both (C) and (D) give letters that both cannot be in the reduced group.



Image

User avatar
CardozoLaw09
Posts: 1750
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:58 pm

Re: PT #20, Section 3, Q# 11

Postby CardozoLaw09 » Fri Jun 07, 2013 1:14 pm

Dr. Dre wrote: I was able to infer that L and N could not both be in the reduce group. I would have easily picked (C), but then I looked at rule #3, and realized that both L and P cannot both be in the reduced group, so I got stuck. Both (C) and (D) give letters that both cannot be in the reduced group.



The third rule is P --> ~L

There's no reason P can't be in the reduced group.

You could have MRPSW for example. We know for certain L and N both have to be out because of the deduction you mentioned; C is therefore the only answer choice that works.

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3402
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

Re: PT #20, Section 3, Q# 11

Postby ManoftheHour » Fri Jun 07, 2013 1:21 pm


User avatar
Dr. Dre
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: PT #20, Section 3, Q# 11

Postby Dr. Dre » Fri Jun 07, 2013 1:21 pm

ManoftheHour wrote:Image

Dre., look.


wut the hell is that

User avatar
TheThriller
Posts: 2285
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 10:12 pm

Re: PT #20, Section 3, Q# 11

Postby TheThriller » Fri Jun 07, 2013 1:31 pm

Congrats Dre!

User avatar
objection_your_honor
Posts: 625
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: PT #20, Section 3, Q# 11

Postby objection_your_honor » Fri Jun 07, 2013 1:56 pm

With MR in you know that L is out (rule #4), and you know that N is out (rule #2).

Some questions will be looking for further inferences, but this one is really just asking about the immediate consequence of the conditional.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 6 guests