Top Law Schools

From PT 44, S3, third game
"the site visited third dates from a more recent century than does either the site visited first or that visited fourth"
i thought as long as the site visited third is more recent than either the site visited first or that visited fourth, it's ok. So the site visited third does not have to be more recent than both.
but the correct understanding should be, the site visited third is more recent than both.
why couldn't the testmaker just use "both"!

I thought "either or" meant that it does one or the other and cannot do both. Sally is either going to the mall or doing her homework. I thought that meant that she was doing one or the other, and not both. If it read Sally is going to the mall or doing her homework she could conceivably do both activities. Is my understanding wrong?

Checks google...

looks like I'm right: " "Either" is also a singular adjective. It means one or the other, but not both. "

borntokill wrote:From PT 44, S3, third game
"the site visited third dates from a more recent century than does either the site visited first or that visited fourth"
i thought as long as the site visited third is more recent than either the site visited first or that visited fourth, it's ok. So the site visited third does not have to be more recent than both.
but the correct understanding should be, the site visited third is more recent than both.
why couldn't the testmaker just use "both"!

Ah, the ancient site game. I remember reading that rule and then being slightly confused, but most certainly this means The following:

"The third site it more recent than either the first or fourth site"

brickman wrote:

borntokill wrote:From PT 44, S3, third game
"the site visited third dates from a more recent century than does either the site visited first or that visited fourth"
i thought as long as the site visited third is more recent than either the site visited first or that visited fourth, it's ok. So the site visited third does not have to be more recent than both.
but the correct understanding should be, the site visited third is more recent than both.
why couldn't the testmaker just use "both"!

Ah, the ancient site game. I remember reading that rule and then being slightly confused, but most certainly this means The following:

"The third site it more recent than either the first or fourth site"

no, i'm pretty sure it should means both in this game. I tried "either or" way, it rendered no answer for most questions.

"Either/or" implies that at least one of the two given variables must be present.

So its possible that:

1. "The site visited third dates from a more recent century than the site visited first"
2. "The site visited third dates from a more recent century than the site visited fourth"
3. "The site visited third dates from a more recent century than the site visited first and fourth"

"Either/or" in LSAT language, can include both. If I remember correctly, for this game the third possibility should be utilized to garner inferences and credited responses.

The final setup should be:

Arch: F/O--F/O--( )--F--F/G

Cent: 8/9--9--10--9--9/10

Edited for clarity.

Good luck <3

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:"Either/or" implies that at least one of the two given variables must be present.

So its possible that:

1. "The site visited third dates from a more recent century than the site visited first"
2. "The site visited third dates from a more recent century than the site visited fourth"
3. "The site visited third dates from a more recent century than the site visited first and fourth"

"Either/or" in LSAT language, can include both. If I remember correctly, for this game the third possibility should be utilized to garner inferences and credited responses.

The final setup should be:

Arch: F/O F/O ( ) F F/G

Century: 8/9 9 10 9 9/10


Good luck <3

my point is, if the rule means ""The site visited third dates from a more recent century than the site visited first but not more recent than fouth"" is acceptable,
than the an acceptable list for the century could be
Century: 8 9 9 10 10

borntokill wrote:

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:"Either/or" implies that at least one of the two given variables must be present.

So its possible that:

1. "The site visited third dates from a more recent century than the site visited first"
2. "The site visited third dates from a more recent century than the site visited fourth"
3. "The site visited third dates from a more recent century than the site visited first and fourth"

"Either/or" in LSAT language, can include both. If I remember correctly, for this game the third possibility should be utilized to garner inferences and credited responses.

The final setup should be:

Arch: F/O F/O ( ) F F/G

Century: 8/9 9 10 9 9/10


Good luck <3

my point is, if the rule means ""The site visited third dates from a more recent century than the site visited first but not more recent than fouth"" is acceptable,
than the an acceptable list for the century could be
Century: 8 9 9 10 10

At first it appears that the 4th site could date from either the 9th or 10th century by combining the the fourth and second rules. But the 4th site cannot date from the 10th century because the third site has to be more recent than the 4th site. Since the 4th cannot date from the 8th century due to second rule, but still can't be as recent as the third (denying the possibility of it dating from the 10th), the only acceptable date is the 9th century for the 4th site.

Your setup actually contradicts the fifth rule. The third site is not more recent than the fourth site.

You said, "The site visited third dates from a more recent century than the site visited first but not more recent than fourth" could be acceptable. This is wrong. Your initial reaction to treat it as "both" is correct. The rule intends to either/or to be interpreted as "The site visited third dates from a more recent century than the site visited first AND fourth."

hth

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:But the 4th site cannot date from the 10th century because the third site has to be more recent than the 4th site.

His point was that according to your interpretation #1: "The site visited third dates from a more recent century than the site visited first" (and the third is not more recent than the fourth), his set-up didn't violate any rules, but failed to allow the right answers.

So not only is your 3rd interpretation the most helpful, but is the only one that is correct.

It seems that the rule was suppose to be interpreted as "both," but the question is, how would you know that durring the actual test without trying out the 3 different set-ups?

This might be wrong, but I think every time it's "either...or" with the meaning of "one or the other" the authors say "either X or Y, but not both."

Also, I think the "than does" might be changing up the "either...or" here. If you use an analogy, like "Lucy visits a more expensive hair salon than does Rita or Eleanor," I think it's quite clear that Lucy's hair salon is more expensive than Rita's AND more expensive than Eleanor's.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong; this is just my understanding of it!

the powerscore bible has a section on this. it says that it basically means "at least one of the two" which "does not preclude both"

However if common knowledge dictates that both is not possible then you can assume that as well. Like if it says you are either in Los Angeles or San Fran

diagrammed:

[strike]LA[/strike] --> SF
[strike]SF[/strike] --> LA

So you will be in at least one, possibly both. However, everyone knows that you can't be in both so in this case you can add:

LA --> [strike]SF[/strike]
SF --> [strike]LA[/strike]

for the common:

LA <--/-->SF

Which leaves only the possibility than you are one or the other. You can't be in both and you can't be in neither.

jpSartre wrote:

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:But the 4th site cannot date from the 10th century because the third site has to be more recent than the 4th site.

His point was that according to your interpretation #1: "The site visited third dates from a more recent century than the site visited first" (and the third is not more recent than the fourth), his set-up didn't violate any rules, but failed to allow the right answers.

So not only is your 3rd interpretation the most helpful, but is the only one that is correct.

It seems that the rule was suppose to be interpreted as "both," but the question is, how would you know that durring the actual test without trying out the 3 different set-ups?

To the bolded, I had already addressed this issue.

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote: If I remember correctly, for this game the third possibility should be utilized to garner inferences and credited responses.

So I definitely see his point as I had already made it.

As to figuring out how to know which possibility is correct without 3 different setups...well its no secret that in the LG section one would have to utilize hypotheticals in order to find the right answer. I know its usually done for "local" questions but I see no reason why it can't be used for the initial setup. The pedantic language of the LSAT can be irritating, but FWIW, when I first read the 5th rule it just seemed clear that it meant "both." I wish I could be of more help....

borntokill wrote:From PT 44, S3, third game
"the site visited third dates from a more recent century than does either the site visited first or that visited fourth"
i thought as long as the site visited third is more recent than either the site visited first or that visited fourth, it's ok. So the site visited third does not have to be more recent than both.
but the correct understanding should be, the site visited third is more recent than both.
why couldn't the testmaker just use "both"!

The way I read this rule was that neither the 1st nor the 4th site could be more recent than the third site.

So 1,4 can either be 8/9 and 3 could be either 9/10 depending on what 1 and 4 both turn out to be dated.

nycparalegal wrote:

borntokill wrote:From PT 44, S3, third game
"the site visited third dates from a more recent century than does either the site visited first or that visited fourth"
i thought as long as the site visited third is more recent than either the site visited first or that visited fourth, it's ok. So the site visited third does not have to be more recent than both.
but the correct understanding should be, the site visited third is more recent than both.
why couldn't the testmaker just use "both"!

The way I read this rule was that neither the 1st nor the 4th site could be more recent than the third site.

So 1,4 can either be 8/9 and 3 could be either 9/10 depending on what 1 and 4 both turn out to be dated.

The 4th site cannot be dated from the 8th century due to the second rule. It must be dated from the 9th.

GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:

nycparalegal wrote:

borntokill wrote:From PT 44, S3, third game
"the site visited third dates from a more recent century than does either the site visited first or that visited fourth"
i thought as long as the site visited third is more recent than either the site visited first or that visited fourth, it's ok. So the site visited third does not have to be more recent than both.
but the correct understanding should be, the site visited third is more recent than both.
why couldn't the testmaker just use "both"!

The way I read this rule was that neither the 1st nor the 4th site could be more recent than the third site.

So 1,4 can either be 8/9 and 3 could be either 9/10 depending on what 1 and 4 both turn out to be dated.

The 4th site cannot be dated from the 8th century due to the second rule. It must be dated from the 9th.

Right, but I'm talking specifically about this one rule and wasn't including inferences from the other rules.