PT 33 Section 4 Game 2 Forum

[dadownclub8]

Hi. I'm having a bit of trouble with Q8.

Part of the Logic chain I have is the contrapositive which is J or M->H. They tell you that J is not in the forest. Correct me if I'm wrong but or is inclusive. I keep wanting to think that since OR is inclusive these are the three possibilities if I break down the aforementioned chain.

J->H
M->H
Or both J and M are there to produce H.

Can someone explain to me whether or not, if this is wrong and if so why it is wrong?

I chose answer choice E because based upon those possibilities, why is it that if you know that you don't have J, that M wouldn't be there for certain? Given the three possibilities, it seems inherent that M would be there for certain? Maybe I'm not understanding. I apologize if this is a ridiculously stupid question but it's been bugging me.

[toshiroh]

If you go to the Manhattan LSAT website, you'll probably have a better chance of getting your question answered. I'm pretty sure someone has already asked it.

[dosto]

.

[Cambridge LSAT]

The rule allows four options:

• In: J H; Out: M
• In: M H; Out: J
• In: H J M
• Out: H J M

It sounds like you forgot that all three can be out.

[AAJD2B]

You're overlooking one of the rules that states if J is not in, then S is in. The correct answer choice states S is not in.

E is a could be true scenario and is not a must be false. We can have H and S as the only variables and everything else out.

[dadownclub8]

So just to make sure I understand it properly. This is more about the logic behind this part of the Q.

If the scenario is J or M->H
and you know ~J
therefore there's nothing you can logically conclude from that correct? This is because you don't know anything about M and since you don't know about M, H is up in the air as well correct? So it could be true, but not necessarily true.

[dosto]

.