So the wording is crystal clear guys. I was about to copy the rules out but I realize it may violate LSAC policy. So to summarize
x and y train in diff fields (sim. wording used twice)
X trains as a photographers assis....
x is assigned to place name (sim. wording used again)
*not actual variables
leaving little doubt which groups "trained" and "field" refer to.
Apologies if that is too much info
4th LG... no valid challenge Forum
-
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 11:28 pm
Re: 4th LG... no valid challenge
I posted this in the big thread. I had argued it was ambiguous. It's not. The others were right.
Anyways, I rocked that one. But can't say the same for the super-easy mulch game.
165.. 7 or so below normal. It's looking like a retake here.
Anyways, I rocked that one. But can't say the same for the super-easy mulch game.
165.. 7 or so below normal. It's looking like a retake here.
-
- Posts: 265
- Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 6:47 pm
Re: 4th LG... no valid challenge
That sucks man. high 160s is still an awesome score though. The mulch one was a bit abstract. I solved it by just using a linear setup and then putting commas between the spaces to indicate when the truck was being cleaned. Just kind of used a bit of black magic rather than the methods I would have normally used.