Top Law Schools

Hey folks, this question is in reference to situations like in Dec 2007 PT 53 G2

When we get a rule or two that say
G is presented either at some time before J or after L but not both
and
V is presented either at some time before G or after P but not both

I diagram it like

G>J or L>G
and
V>G or P>V

PS says the first one should be
G>J
---
L

J > G
--
L
this doesn't make sense to be because if G>J I take it to mean L has to come after J
there diagram leads me to believe it could be G>L>J

if L > J I would think G must come after J but their diagram looks like it could be L>J>G

the other one makes sense to me

V > G
----
P
or

P > V
--
G

meaning if V>G P must come after V and if P>V, then G must come after V which both of those diagram allow.

Atlas explanation says to diagram it G not between J and L
and
V not between G and P

I really don't see where that comes from.

Would you guys please tell me how you work these kinds of problems?

Thanks alot

Diagram it however you want but the rules gives you two options each:

G is either before both J and L, or else G is after both J and L.

G will never be inbetween J and L (G will not be before J AND after L).

Same thing with the next rule:

V is before G and P, or else V is after G and P. It will never be inbetween (V cannot be before G and after P).

I would set up two diagrams with the first rule and then add in the 2nd rule if it fits. If not then just keep the 2nd rule written to the side and attack the questions.

Anomaly wrote:Diagram it however you want but the rules gives you two options each:

G is either before both J and L, or else G is after both J and L.

G will never be inbetween J and L (G will not be before J AND after L).

Same thing with the next rule:

V is before G and P, or else V is after G and P. It will never be inbetween (V cannot be before G and after P).

I would set up two diagrams with the first rule and then add in the 2nd rule if it fits. If not then just keep the 2nd rule written to the side and attack the questions.

I concur with this.

I would diagram it as,

J-G-L
or
L-G-J

Adding the second rule,

P-V-G
or
G-V-P

Now, we could connect the first diagram to the second diagram but I personally wouldn't find that helpful. All you would get is another 4 diagrams. I only connect rules when the combination of those rules reduces the total amount of diagrams I have to review. In this case, i would go from 4 to 4 and I dont think there would be much benefit. I would just keep those guys close together and draw an arrow to note that the two are connected.

PowerScore is great for the basics but I have to really urge you to consider getting away from the use of greater and less than signs. Elastic bands, "-", are so much more effective.