Top Law Schools

For this question, I was able to cross out answer choices (A), (B), (E). But got stuck Between answer choices (C) and (D). The reason I was stuck was because I did not understand a section of the question:

...which one of the following is a pair of areas neither of which could be reduced

(C) L, N
(D) L, P

After putting M and R in the reduce group (and inferring that W follows), I was able to infer that L and N could not both be in the reduce group. I would have easily picked (C), but then I looked at rule #3, and realized that both L and P cannot both be in the reduced group, so I got stuck. Both (C) and (D) give letters that both cannot be in the reduced group.

Dr. Dre wrote: I was able to infer that L and N could not both be in the reduce group. I would have easily picked (C), but then I looked at rule #3, and realized that both L and P cannot both be in the reduced group, so I got stuck. Both (C) and (D) give letters that both cannot be in the reduced group.

The third rule is P --> ~L

There's no reason P can't be in the reduced group.

You could have MRPSW for example. We know for certain L and N both have to be out because of the deduction you mentioned; C is therefore the only answer choice that works.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... &start=850

Dre., look.

ManoftheHour wrote:

Dre., look.

wut the hell is that

Congrats Dre!

With MR in you know that L is out (rule #4), and you know that N is out (rule #2).

Some questions will be looking for further inferences, but this one is really just asking about the immediate consequence of the conditional.