PT 64 logic game trick question!!! Forum

walterwhite · Post by **walterwhite** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 8:15 pm

Ok so obviously the first game is a very easy, simple one layer sequencing game. HOWEVER, question 4 has to be one of the most confusing, horribly worded LG questions I've ever seen.

If the test writers wanted us to find out how many employees are limited to ONLY 2 possibilities, then shouldn't they have just said that? The inclusion of the phrase "limited to ONE OF" made me think they were asking how many employees had only 2 possibilities, but were limited to only ONE of those possibilities in ALL possible worlds. Since this is true for none of the employees, I chose A.

So why did they need to include "one of"?? Why couldn't they just ask "How many of the employees are limited to 2 Possible Spaces?" The answer to that question is obviously four.

dontdoitkid · Post by **dontdoitkid** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 8:39 pm

That was probably their intention, especially in an easier sequencing games like this. If an employee has two possibilities, but they are limited to one of them those possibilities in all possible worlds, do you mean that they are limited to the same spot each time (i.e. option A each time)?

walterwhite · Post by **walterwhite** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 8:54 pm

dontdoitkid wrote:That was probably their intention, especially in an easier sequencing games like this. If an employee has two possibilities, but they are limited to one of them those possibilities in all possible worlds, do you mean that they are limited to the same spot each time (i.e. option A each time)?

yes that's how I understood it.

For example, the last rule limits R to 4 possibilities (first, second, third, fourth). Because of its relation with other rules, however, R is further limited to being in 3 or 4. So R is limited to "TWO of FOUR possibilities." Thus, I didn't think R met the criteria set out by the question (limited to only one of two possibilities).

dontdoitkid · Post by **dontdoitkid** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:07 pm

This might not help directly, but keep in mind that there have been a few games where some of a rules potential outcomes are cancelled out by other rules. They do try to trick you from time to time. In response to your example with R, I would say that the implications of the rules take precedence over the wording of the rules alone. So even a rule said R could go in 1-4, if the other rules cause R to really be restricted to 3 or 4, then the implication is that R actually only has two spots.

Also, I need to stop saying implication. Reminds me of this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar9spNzOFPk, was NOT my intention haha

Yeezus · Post by **Yeezus** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:25 pm

Uhhh... I don't see what was so tricky about the wording.

walterwhite · Post by **walterwhite** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:27 pm

YeezusPiece wrote:Uhhh... I don't see what was so tricky about the wording.

Uhhh.... It asks which of the employees are limited to ONLY ONE of two possibilities. But none of them are limited to ONLY ONE possibility. They all have at least 2 possibilities.

I really don't know how I can make the problem any clearer for you. But thanks for the input bro! Your response to my question was very helpful!

Christine (MLSAT) · Post by **Christine (MLSAT)** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:46 pm

So, I think the problem that you are having is that when you take things one rule at a time, you start whittling down the possibilities step by step. But the LSAT doesn't care about the STEPS that you used to get to a final determination about an employee.

If, at the end of all the analysis, an employee were limited in all possible worlds to only one spot, then the LSAT would only ever refer to that as "being limited to one possible spot". They would never, ever refer to it as being limited to one of two spots, even if they way you work through the analysis first limited that employee to two slots, THEN further limited that employee to only one spot.

They simply don't care about your steps.

Thus, R is limited to 2 spots.

Imagine if there were 7 spots in this game instead of 6. If we took Rules 1&3 first, we're first say R is limited to 5 spots. Then when we add in the last rule, we'd get down to 2. By your phrasing, we'd say R is limited to 2 of 5 spots.

But what if we used the last rule first? There's no rules about what order we handle the rules in! The last rule would have me saying that R is limited to 4 spots first. Then, adding in the rest of the rules, I'd whittle that down to 2. So, by your phrasing, R is limited to 2 of 4 spots.

Which is right? There would be no way to tell.

Incidentally, there are a lot of places where the LSAT uses obnoxious wording to be mean. I actually don't think this is one of them. I think they are using obnoxious wording here in an effort to be as grammatically correct as possible. If they had said "limited to two possible spaces", grammatically that could mean that an employee was limited to a maximum of two spaces simultaneously (which can happen on mismatch games, of course). Here, depending on how you interpret it, that would either to an answer of zero or six.

Point is, that wording might have left them technically open to a valid challenge on the question. This wording doesn't, those it is a tad hard to read.

Yeezus · Post by **Yeezus** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 10:02 pm

walterwhite wrote:
YeezusPiece wrote:Uhhh... I don't see what was so tricky about the wording.

Uhhh.... It asks which of the employees are limited to ONLY ONE of two possibilities. But none of them are limited to ONLY ONE possibility. They all have at least 2 possibilities.

I really don't know how I can make the problem any clearer for you. But thanks for the input bro! Your response to my question was very helpful!

No, it asks which of the employees are limited to ONE OF ONLY TWO possibilities (the keyword being TWO). Nowhere does it say ONLY ONE possibility. It's not that hard to get. How about you quit whining because you misunderstood an easy question? It's not a trick question.

walterwhite · Post by **walterwhite** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 11:23 pm

YeezusPiece wrote:
walterwhite wrote:
YeezusPiece wrote:Uhhh... I don't see what was so tricky about the wording.

Uhhh.... It asks which of the employees are limited to ONLY ONE of two possibilities. But none of them are limited to ONLY ONE possibility. They all have at least 2 possibilities.

I really don't know how I can make the problem any clearer for you. But thanks for the input bro! Your response to my question was very helpful!
No, it asks which of the employees are limited to ONE OF ONLY TWO possibilities (the keyword being TWO). Nowhere does it say ONLY ONE possibility. It's not that hard to get. How about you quit whining because you misunderstood an easy question? It's not a trick question.

Did my question bother you that much that you felt it was necessary to post not once but TWICE that I should have understood the question? I don't give a flying fuck that you understood the question. I interpreted it differently and I was confused by it. Take your snarky comments and condescending ellipsis usage and kindly get the fuck out of this thread

PT 64 logic game trick question!!! Forum

PT 64 logic game trick question!!!

Re: PT 64 logic game trick question!!!

Re: PT 64 logic game trick question!!!

Re: PT 64 logic game trick question!!!

Re: PT 64 logic game trick question!!!

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Re: PT 64 logic game trick question!!!

Re: PT 64 logic game trick question!!!

Re: PT 64 logic game trick question!!!

Re: PT 64 logic game trick question!!!

Register for access!