PT #20, Section 3, Q# 11

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
User avatar
Dr. Dre

Gold
Posts: 2337
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

Gold
Posts: 2183
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

Gold
Posts: 3488
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

Gold
Posts: 2337
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

Gold
Posts: 2282
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

Silver
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: No registered users and 6 guests