PT 31 Sec 1 Questions 10-13 Forum

[nothblake]

On question number 9 the answer hinged on reading the question carefully and catching that the writers were asking for not only the minimum number of types of CDs (as in genres) but also that they further restricted that number to new types. Everything after that was downhill, and I would like to know why this game in particular was impossible to figure out, even untimed.

Take a look, please, and tell me what you guys think about this one, if it's unusual in some way, if this game is of a type that isn't on recent tests, etc. Thanks for your perspective.

[lederhosen]

.

[LSAT Hacks (Graeme)]

Don't worry, this is one of the hardest Logic Games *ever*. It's an in out game, but it has and/or conditional statements, which mess with the usual structure of this type of game.

You're correct, question nine was restricted just to new CDs. Careful reading more than pays for itself in time saved!

Here's a video explanation of the game, hope it helps:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FFk2uxKxz0&feature=plcp

[nothblake]

On question 9, "minimum number of types" gave the impression that a small number was to be expected.

--

A more significant misunderstanding was related to the condition(s) that "used pop is on sale; new opera is not." On the first pass this looked like an "if used pop is on sale, new opera is not" type condition. The second pass seemed to confirm that it was not permanent because of the rule about "If both types of pop are on sale..." But yet this was still mistaken.

The condition was written confusingly; two separate, independent conditions are put on the same line. Since they are not dependent on each other, and a semi-colon implies a relationship, it would have been better to have them on separate lines. Questions 10-13 were challenging but not impossible when this was realized, and not possible to answer without it.

--

After correcting for the above misunderstanding of the first set of conditions, Question #10 was answered like this:

'Which cannot be true?'

Correct answer, D) Neither type of Jazz CDs and neither type of Soul CDs are on sale.

1) "Neither type of Jazz" rule triggered a sale on new Pop CDs.
2) Since used Pop CDs are always on sale, the "both types of Pop" rule triggered a sale on all Soul CDs, new and used.
3) Since the answer said that "neither type of Soul" CDs are on sale, this can't be true.

---

Question 12 is circular reasoning. The only type of new CD on sale is new soul. New Jazz CDs can't be sold under this condition, and so if no USED Jazz CDs are sold, then new Pop CDs must be put on sale, which cannot happen. How do you guys approach this type of question?

[lederhosen]

.

[nothblake]

Ya I agree, a few of the games in the 20-30's are formatted a bit differently than what you'd expect if you did 40-60's, but practicing vigilance will be good incase they throw a curveball on test day

Maybe in some non-common-law jurisdictions they use typographic errors to throw law students "curveballs," but I'd have a hard time imagining that being done in this country.

[Jeffort]

Ya I agree, a few of the games in the 20-30's are formatted a bit differently than what you'd expect if you did 40-60's, but practicing vigilance will be good incase they throw a curveball on test day

Maybe in some non-common-law jurisdictions they use typographic errors to throw law students "curveballs," but I'd have a hard time imagining that being done in this country.

I think you completely misunderstood what the previous poster meant by 'curveballs'. It was referring to logic games of a different than typical/run of the mill game type/construction (sequencing, grouping, standard sequencing and grouping variations, etc.) and/or ones with unusual types of indented rules.

The CD game is loaded with conditional rules that have two sufficient and two necessary conditions in each indented rule connected with either an AND or an OR on each side of the sufficient and necessary relationship.

The game can be a royal workhorse pain in the rear to get several points, but the logic is solid and there are fairly straightforward strategies/shortcuts that skilled/well prepared test takers can employ to solve all the questions correctly without having to do a ton of hypotheticals. One of the biggest challenges of that game is writing out the rules legibly in a way so that all the variables and rules are distinct on the page in a way to easily work with/sort through when analyzing the questions.

Where did non-common-law jurisdictions and typos come from in the thread or anywhere else related to the LSAT logic games section? I'm confused by what you are trying to convey with your post.

[nothblake]

Where did non-common-law jurisdictions and typos come from in the thread or anywhere else related to the LSAT logic games section?

They're in here somewhere.

[CyanIdes Of March]

Just did this one myself... man was it hard. Really killed the entire section for me. I had to just abandon the timed test so I could sit there and see what I was doing wrong as my normal method of a approach for in-out games was not making things any easier.

[Triveal]

I came upon this game today and the first time, I really struggled with it. I came back to it two hours later and completely blew through it. As long as you keep your conditional statements very, very clear, you don't even have to make inferences from them. For example, the second rule should be diagrammed:

"Pu + Pn -> Su + Sn;
~Sn or ~Su -> ~Pu or ~Pn"

as long as you do that, all you really have to do is follow as many conditional statements as possible with the given information, and when you find that one type is for sure in, write it next to the question; if it's out, write it and cross it out next to the question. I thought the last game in this PT (about installation on 3 days) was a little more awkward than this one.

[CyanIdes Of March]

I came upon this game today and the first time, I really struggled with it. I came back to it two hours later and completely blew through it. As long as you keep your conditional statements very, very clear, you don't even have to make inferences from them. For example, the second rule should be diagrammed:

"Pu + Pn -> Su + Sn;
~Sn or ~Su -> ~Pu or ~Pn"

as long as you do that, all you really have to do is follow as many conditional statements as possible with the given information, and when you find that one type is for sure in, write it next to the question; if it's out, write it and cross it out next to the question. I thought the last game in this PT (about installation on 3 days) was a little more awkward than this one.

That one was pretty awkward as well but ultimately easier to get through than the other one for me.