a question about a non-LSAT logic puzzle Forum

[TLS1776]

I'm trying to become better at logic puzzles in order to prepare for the LSAT, but can't seem to solve the puzzle below; I get the answer down to four possibilities, but the book only lists one of the possibilities as correct.

Mr. Carter, Mr. Flynn, Mr. Milne, and Mr. Savage serve the little town of Milford as architect, banker, druggist, and grocer, though not necessarily respectively. Each man's income is a whole number of dollars.

The druggist earns exactly twice as much as the grocer, the architect earns exactly twice as much as the druggist, and the banker earns exactly twice as much as the architect.
Although Mr. Carter is older than anyone who makes more money than Mr. Flynn, Mr. Flynn does not make twice as much as Mr. Carter.
Mr. Savage earns exactly $3776 more than Mr. Milne.

What is each man's occupation?

I have two questions about this game:
1. Is there only one possible answer? If so, why?
2. What is the significance of "Mr. Carter is older than anyone who makes more money than Mr. Flynn"? I couldn't find any way to make use of the information.

[napolnic]

Which one does the book give as the only answer?

[andreibaru]

Although Mr. Carter is older than anyone who makes more money than Mr. Flynn, Mr. Flynn does not make twice as much as Mr. Carter.

This is really the meat premise of the problem. It lets you know that in a ranking of 1..2..3..4 Mr Carter is not exactly one rank less than Mr Flynn. It also lets you know ( i think ) that Mr Carter does not make more money than Mr. Flynn b/c this would lead to Mr. Carter apparently being older than himself. This leads to Mr Flynn only being in position 3 or 4 since there has to be at least one other person separating him and Mr. Carter. I havent bothered to take the time to finish the entire puzzle b/c its 2 am here and i just finished my LSAT today in Tokyo.. hope it helps tho.

[TLS1776]

This is all that the book gives as the solution:
"Carter is the grocer, Flynn the banker, Milne the druggist, and Savage the architect."
The book doesn't explain how to arrive at that conclusion.

I narrowed the possibilities to the following four (with their incomes in parentheses):
Banker ( $ ) - Architect ($) - Druggist ($) - Grocer ($)
1. Savage (7552) - Milne (3776) - Carter (1888) - Flynn (944)
2. Flynn (15104) - Savage (7552) - Milne (3776) - Carter (1888)
3. Carter (15104) - Savage (7552) - Milne (3776) - Flynn (1888)
4. Carter (30208) - Flynn (15104) - Savage (7552) - Milne (3776)

[TLS1776]

Although Mr. Carter is older than anyone who makes more money than Mr. Flynn, Mr. Flynn does not make twice as much as Mr. Carter.

This is really the meat premise of the problem. It lets you know that in a ranking of 1..2..3..4 Mr Carter is not exactly one rank less than Mr Flynn. It also lets you know ( i think ) that Mr Carter does not make more money than Mr. Flynn b/c this would lead to Mr. Carter apparently being older than himself. This leads to Mr Flynn only being in position 3 or 4 since there has to be at least one other person separating him and Mr. Carter. I havent bothered to take the time to finish the entire puzzle b/c its 2 am here and i just finished my LSAT today in Tokyo.. hope it helps tho.

Ahhhh.....that is exactly the explanation I was hoping someone could offer. I didn't think of that inference. Thank you!

[andreibaru]

so of your four possibilities.. it seems that only #2 would work.. and that matches up with the books answer i believe. I still am not very happy with the way that was snuck in. Its not clear at all and i doubt you'd ever run into to something so vague in anything but a practice test book. Anyways.. good luck.

[EricM]

What book are you reading?

[TLS1776]

This was question #4 from "101 Puzzles in Thought & Logic", by C.R. Wylie Jr. It was first published in 1957, about the time that the LSAT was first created. I've realized (and andreibaru would seem to agree) that the LSAT and other logic games make use of language in a different way than we do in everyday situations.

So, for example, if you were talking to someone on the street and they said "Mr. Carter is older than anyone who makes more money than Mr. Flynn", you would understand that they meant "anyone other than Mr. Carter who makes more money than Mr. Flynn". The speaker would not be including Mr. Carter in the set of people referred to by the word "anyone".

Here's a real-world example: when someone is talking to his friends and says "Anyone want to go to the movies?" it is understood that he means "Anyone other than me want to go to the movies?" Otherwise the question would be pointless, as the answer would be obvious: "Yes; at least you want to go to the movies."

The same thing is seen in the Logical Reasoning section of the LSAT, in which "most" can include "all", which is NOT how people in the real world generally use the word.

I'm hoping that by doing lots of logic games (and not just LSAT games) I can learn to avoid these confusions.