PT40 Sec. 2 #17 (Games) Forum

[2011Law]

For the love of god I do not understand this one. I'm doing fine on the more recent games, but this question is taunting me. Please help.

[2011Law]

Is everyone too busy hitting the refresh button waiting for scores?

[Hedwig]

Ask again later.

[Manhattan LSAT Noah]

There's a discussion of the game here: http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/pre ... g-f35.html

[2011Law]

There's a discussion of the game here: http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/pre ... g-f35.html

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction... fml I'm dumb. On the upside, Andrew Shrivell has given me inspiration that even dumb people can get anywhere in life.

[2011Law]

Also, hey eit. lol

[jlhero]

all hard lg's have a very important inference.

i just did this game today, the key inference is that Vancouver can pair with all 4 others. and only by doing this we can know what is the maximum # of pairs.

i think the only hard question in this game is 16, 17 shouldnt be hard

[2011Law]

i just did this game today, the key inference is that Vancouver can pair with all 4 others. and only by doing this we can know what is the maximum # of pairs.

When Vancouver is paired with the four other cities, then you only have four pairs of cities connected, not five as is the maximum (which I got from doing #12). I think the only question that inference helps with (but is key for) is 17.

[jlhero]

no...... you need to also consider that TP is the only pair left possible. so the max is 5

[2011Law]

no...... you need to also consider that TP is the only pair left possible. so the max is 5

The max is five, like I said, which you get by doing #12. But when V is connected with T P H and M, T and P cannot be connected, as per the last rule, hence there are only four connections with 17.

/thread

[jlhero]

ya, i must have remembered something wrong.

but my point is, by noticing that Vancouver is able to pair with all others, i pretty much answered all questions easily.