An example of ambiguity Forum

[twintipping_bumps]

deleted

[merichard87]

Define environment.

[3|ink]

Define example.

[twintipping_bumps]

deleted

[bk1]

This has no bearing on our 16+ page thread of magnificence.

Nice try though.

[balzern]

Define the specific type of rainforest using longitude and latitude to the hundreth degree.

[merichard87]

If this is supposed to compare to the question on the LSAT I think the word in question was used in the set-up and simply had two meanings. In this example you have described the setup as with location and temperature and then pulled out the word environment. I see what you're trying to do but its not the same type of problem.

[stintez]

Bob, Carl, Dave, Elise, and Francine work in the following locations: a Rainforest, a Desert, and a Meadow. At each location, they can work in the warmest area or the coldest area.

Bob can not be in the same environment as Carl.

Elise must be in the same environment as Dave.

I would think you were talking about RainForest Desert Meadow.

[FuManChusco]

This has no bearing on our 16+ page thread of magnificence.

Nice try though.

I'm glad I have someone else who feels 100% about a lack of ambiguity in the 16+ page thread. It's getting ridiculous, but I don't want it to stop. Perfect time killer when I have 6 hours of class and a smart phone. Also, yeah this example is ridiculous. The game on the actual test was not nearly as vague.

[merichard87]

Bob, Carl, Dave, Elise, and Francine work in the following locations: a Rainforest, a Desert, and a Meadow. At each location, they can work in the warmest area or the coldest area.

Bob can not be in the same environment as Carl.

Elise must be in the same environment as Dave.

I would think you were talking about RainForest Desert Meadow.

I would assume environment mean location/temp combo so for example Bob cant be in the warmest area of the Rainforest if Carl is but he could be in the coldest area of the Rainforest.

[stintez]

Bob, Carl, Dave, Elise, and Francine work in the following locations: a Rainforest, a Desert, and a Meadow. At each location, they can work in the warmest area or the coldest area.

Bob can not be in the same environment as Carl.

Elise must be in the same environment as Dave.

I would think you were talking about RainForest Desert Meadow.

I would assume environment mean location/temp combo so for example Bob cant be in the warmest area of the Rainforest if Carl is but he could be in the coldest area of the Rainforest.

That would work as well.

[twintipping_bumps]

deleted

[merichard87]

If this is supposed to compare to the question on the LSAT I think the word in question was used in the set-up and simply had two meanings. In this example you have described the setup as with location and temperature and then pulled out the word environment. I see what you're trying to do but its not the same type of problem.

Yeah, I don't want to publicly discuss that question because of the form I signed at the test. However, the whole problem with what I have written is that the word is not defined in the set-up. In what I have written, the fact I don't define the word in the set-up is what creates the ambiguity.

Exactly. Yes there is ambiguity here but it is not the same as the LSAT question. And for that matter, the way the LSAT question was explained to me I don't think there was any fault on LSAC. Yes the word itself had 2 meanings but some simple thinking could have lead one to the correct definition.

[005618502]

The word on the LSAT game was defined in the Question!! what is wrong with everyone??? Seriously some people should not go to law school...... They cant even take a word in the right context after it was defined in the game.....

[LoyolaLaw2012]

Bob, Carl, Dave, Elise, and Francine work in the following locations: a Rainforest, a Desert, and a Meadow. At each location, they can work in the warmest area or the coldest area.

Bob can not be in the same environment as Carl.

Elise must be in the same environment as Dave.

I am confused about "area."

[jpSartre]

Define "Dave"

[mst]

Am I only the only one that see's a remarkable resemblance between this and an LSAT Setup??? For common sense's sake I would suggest this be shut down...

[merichard87]

Am I only the only one that see's a remarkable resemblance between this and an LSAT Setup??? For common sense's sake I would suggest this be shut down...

What? If its not an actual game can it be considered copyright infringement?

[holydonkey]

Bob could be an abbreviation for any number of names; Bobby, Robert, Bobbi, Bobbie, etc. It's not really a fair set up for the logic game.

[bk1]

What? If its not an actual game can it be considered copyright infringement?

It's specifically against LSAC rules to talk about the details of questions until they are released. Why this makes it okay to say something like "the mulch game was hard," I do not know.

TLS as a forum has an interest in making sure its members do not violate this rule so they are not subject to LSAC's wrath.

[merichard87]

What? If its not an actual game can it be considered copyright infringement?

It's specifically against LSAC rules to talk about the details of questions until they are released. Why this makes it okay to say something like "the mulch game was hard," I do not know.

TLS as a forum has an interest in making sure its members do not violate this rule so they are not subject to LSAC's wrath.

Yea i definitely understand that but if I make up a logic game is it still a problem?

[mst]

From the Sticky:

"this prohibition does not apply solely to the direct quotation of test questions and answers. Approximations of the language used in questions/answer choices"

If you make up a game that is strikingly similar in structure and context, then yes. I'm on your side here, just suggesting extreme caution. One more opportunity to bicker is not worth a ban or worse.

[bk1]

Yea i definitely understand that but if I make up a logic game is it still a problem?

If your intent is to make up that logic game to disguise a discussion of something that isn't supposed to be discussed (i.e. an unreleased LSAT question), then yes it could still be a problem.

[merichard87]

Ok just asking for clarification here.

[twintipping_bumps]

I just made up my own question to discuss a general construction of language that could lead to ambiguity and confuse people. Since I was not citing a specific question or replicating any language from the exam, I thought it would be fine. I am hyper-aware of respecting the agreement I signed when I took at the test. I don't participate in any of the public discussions about the exam here, even though I would really enjoy doing so.

Since someone suggested what I wrote could be interpreted as a violation of the agreement, I have deleted what I have written. What I wrote appears by quotation from a few other people, so I hope the mods will just delete the entire post.