PT 58 Section 3 Question 23 Forum

[jesuis]

I didn't have much trouble with this game (Game 4 of this section) but missed this question...

When I did the PT (timed) this was the last question of the section so I rushed through it and chose A, which is incorrect because it doesn't give the same effect as M-> not S & not T but is rather a condition that must be true based on that rule (when M is selected, L must also be selected, and one of S or W--in order to satisfy the minimum 3 condition without any other violations)...

When I reviewed this question, I again immediately discarded choices C & D but left E and B in consideration. I then discarded E because it has the wrong conjunction (P or T -> not M) would have been correct but E states P AND T -> M, which is incorrect. So I'm left with B, which turns out to be the correct answer.... but my issue is that it requires that only L & S be selected when M is selected, which I guess is consistent with the original rule at issue... yet it ignores the fact that it could just as well be that both L & W are selected when M is selected, which would also be consistent.

My concern is that this questions comes off as a "must be true" (which is why I was tricked into A before properly thinking through the question stem), but the correct answer B is only something that could be true but is not necessarily the only way to maintain the effect of condition in question (M->not S & not T)... Soooo, does someone have input on this type of question (could be true posing as must be true?)?

Maybe I'm over-thinking it, because I can get the correct answer by eliminating the incorrect ones, but any input would be appreciated.

[EastBay Jose]

The rule in question says "M-> not P & not T"

Choice B says "Only L, S, and W are eligible to be selected when M is selected."
Choice B would prohibit P and T when M was selected, like the rule in question does.
Choice B would also prohibit H when M was selected, but since MH is already prohibited by another rule, this would just be redundant, not an additional restriction.

You say:
"...my issue [with Choice B] is that it requires that only L & S be selected when M is selected, which I guess is consistent with the original rule at issue... yet it ignores the fact that it could just as well be that both L & W are selected when M is selected, which would also be consistent."

You've misread Choice B; it says "Only L, S, and W are eligible to be selected when M is selected." So it allows for both MLS and MLW as outcomes.

[jesuis]

AAAHH!!!

I was definitely doing this too late in the evening... totally missed that, which clears everything up!

Thanks for pointing that out.