Okay, I've done all the LG sections in the three 3 10 books now, but this is the first time I can remember coming across a question like this. One in which it makes you think that a main rule is being suspended when in actuality your main diagram remains exactly the same thanks to some sneaky LSAC wording. Unfortunately, I fell for the trap of disassociating X&S reading the wording to mean that X and W had to be exactly the same without X having more features. It just says suppose they share exactly two features (which they already did in the first place).
Anybody know of other "fake" rule suspension questions?
PT 35 S3 LG 2 #12 Forum
-
3|ink
- Posts: 7393
- Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm
Re: PT 35 S3 LG 2 #12
Nope. I loved this game. I love games like this one.
-
LSAT Blog
- Posts: 1257
- Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:24 pm
Re: PT 35 S3 LG 2 #12
It's not "fake" - it introduces ambiguity, which does alter the main diagram.
Instead of X being required to have all 3 (PLS), it's now required simply to have both P and L. It might have S, it might not have S. In other words, it might have 3 options (as it did before), but it could now have only 2 options instead.
I think you're focusing too much on the fact that X and W share exactly 2 options. What about the removal of the condition that X have more options than W?
Instead of X being required to have all 3 (PLS), it's now required simply to have both P and L. It might have S, it might not have S. In other words, it might have 3 options (as it did before), but it could now have only 2 options instead.
I think you're focusing too much on the fact that X and W share exactly 2 options. What about the removal of the condition that X have more options than W?
