Top Law Schools

Did "field" refer to the location or type of work?

MiamiUG wrote:Did "field" refer to the location or type of work?

I thought field as in type of work. There were two "fields."

The term referred to profession, not to the location; I believe that was "story".

There is an ongoing thread about this question:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=119861

The right way was to think of it is 'type'.

OK thanks, that's what I thought. I started freaking out today at the possibility that I misinterpreted the rules and bombed that game.

Yeah, that would be pretty hard to take... I was freaking when I realized I started bubbling in Q2 to start, instead of Q1 on the answer sheet... but wasn't too caught up since I was only on Q4 or Q5 at that time... And as it turns out it was in the experimental logic game section in any case with all my nonstop flights and whatnot.

People keep talking about some sort of "master inference" that one had to make to solve the question, but I didn't see any...

I just made hypotheticals for all local questions and then somehow managed to figure it out...

akikaze wrote:People keep talking about some sort of "master inference" that one had to make to solve the question, but I didn't see any...

I just made hypotheticals for all local questions and then somehow managed to figure it out...

Without saying too much it pretty much had to do (at least the way I saw it) with the fact one 'story' was restricted in one way, then two exclusion/inclusion rules force you to do another restriction on the aforementioned 'story'.

Probably pretty hard to understand what I mean when it's so vague though...

Pahnda wrote:

akikaze wrote:People keep talking about some sort of "master inference" that one had to make to solve the question, but I didn't see any...

I just made hypotheticals for all local questions and then somehow managed to figure it out...

Without saying too much it pretty much had to do (at least the way I saw it) with the fact one 'story' was restricted in one way, then two exclusion/inclusion rules force you to do another restriction on the aforementioned 'story'.

Probably pretty hard to understand what I mean when it's so vague though...

I think it was one of those things where the rules didn't specifically state that a variable had to go in a specific slot but it could be deduced that one variable had to go in one slot, and if you figured this out, everything fell into place . . .right?

I dont believe that there's any huge inference that u can make to fill in any of the blanks.
the restrictions have to be applied to each answer of each question, and that's why it's so time-consuming.

Pahnda wrote:

akikaze wrote:People keep talking about some sort of "master inference" that one had to make to solve the question, but I didn't see any...

I just made hypotheticals for all local questions and then somehow managed to figure it out...

Without saying too much it pretty much had to do (at least the way I saw it) with the fact one 'story' was restricted in one way, then two exclusion/inclusion rules force you to do another restriction on the aforementioned 'story'.

Probably pretty hard to understand what I mean when it's so vague though...

Was the second restriction onto that specific "story" a dual-option? 'Cuz that isn't a huge inference, imo...

Also, the two variables that were in the same (term) could have been of either (term) depending on the situation, right?

idoubtit wrote:I dont believe that there's any huge inference that u can make to fill in any of the blanks.
the restrictions have to be applied to each answer of each question, and that's why it's so time-consuming.

You might believe that, but you would be wrong.

I'll take a stab at describing the inference in admissible terms as well: it relied on the realization that combining 3 of the rules mostly determined the outcome of the game.

d34dluk3 wrote:

idoubtit wrote:I dont believe that there's any huge inference that u can make to fill in any of the blanks.
the restrictions have to be applied to each answer of each question, and that's why it's so time-consuming.

You might believe that, but you would be wrong.

I'll take a stab at describing the inference in admissible terms as well: it relied on the realization that combining 3 of the rules mostly determined the outcome of the game.

I guess u are right. My problem is always that I cannot make enough inferences out of the conditions.
I thought it would be too time-consuming but yea, it can save your time actually.

d34dluk3 wrote:

idoubtit wrote:I dont believe that there's any huge inference that u can make to fill in any of the blanks.
the restrictions have to be applied to each answer of each question, and that's why it's so time-consuming.

You might believe that, but you would be wrong.

I'll take a stab at describing the inference in admissible terms as well: it relied on the realization that combining 3 of the rules mostly determined the outcome of the game.

I guess u are right. My problem is always that I cannot make enough inferences out of the conditions.
I thought it would be too time-consuming but yea, it can save your time actually.