# Law School Discussion

## LSAT Preparation => Studying for the LSAT => Topic started by: silverapplejam on August 18, 2010, 08:06:31 AM

Title: PT35-S3-Game4 (Oct, 2001)
Post by: silverapplejam on August 18, 2010, 08:06:31 AM
In Game 4, why R can only be placed in 1991?  I think R can still be in 93, 94, or 95 since it does not violate the rules. Or maybe I just interpret it wrong about Rule #1, which states "Robinson in 1991", which means R can only be in 1991 but other years?  Appreciate your help!
Title: Re: PT35-S3-Game4 (Oct, 2001)
Post by: matt@atlaslsat on August 19, 2010, 05:12:51 PM
I think you've slightly misread this game...  Each of the seven professors will be hired in one, and only one, year.  According to this game it's not possible for a professor to be hired both in 1991 and 1993.  Since the first constraint specifically says that Robinson was hired in 1991, that's it.  Robinson cannot be hired in any other year at that point.

Hopefully that helps clear up the confusion with setting up this game!

Also, after all the inferences are made we can establish the following game board before we begin the questions.

P can be assigned to 91, 92, or 93

N   O  R  S  M   /   T
__ __ __ __ __ __ __
89 90 91 92 93 94 95
Title: Re: PT35-S3-Game4 (Oct, 2001)
Post by: Jeffort on August 19, 2010, 06:04:38 PM
In Game 4, why R can only be placed in 1991?  I think R can still be in 93, 94, or 95 since it does not violate the rules. Or maybe I just interpret it wrong about Rule #1, which states "Robinson in 1991", which means R can only be in 1991 but other years?  Appreciate your help!

Matt's previous response is much more forgiving and generous in the giving the benefit of the doubt to a ridiculous question category than I will muster since I think the thread question is bogus.

We don't even have to extrapolate beyond the literal text of the rule (that you included in your post) to answer your question.  R was hired in 1991, where lies the confusion?  Major brain fart when reading it the first time and before posting your question or something?

Sorry to sound condescending but the question is a non question unless you are going for a Bill Clinton and trying to get people to debate what the meaning of 'is' is.
Title: Re: PT35-S3-Game4 (Oct, 2001)
Post by: silverapplejam on August 21, 2010, 10:27:03 PM
Jeff something you need a break.  maybe you are so overwhelmed by LSAT and your life, but it's not necessary to be so personal in this forum, right? don't try to lose your control.

-------------------------------------
anyway, i still don't get why each professor can be hired once.  because R can be hired in 93, 94, and 95 without violating the rules.  if it is given in the game something like "each professor can only be hired in one year", then i could understand. but it doesn't?

Title: Re: PT35-S3-Game4 (Oct, 2001)
Post by: EarlCat on August 23, 2010, 08:22:10 AM
This is where understanding the mechanics of the LSAT itself comes in handy.  This game is clearly an ordering/sequencing game, which doesn't work if you can repeat the elements.

More generally, (and this came up in a thread several months ago when someone else was bellyaching about a rule) if your interpretation of the rules leaves you without an answer, your interpretation is wrong.  Look at number 22.  If professors could be hired more than once then all five answers would work.  (Contrapositive: If question 22 can't have five right answers then professors can't be hired more than once.)
Title: Re: PT35-S3-Game4 (Oct, 2001)
Post by: Jeffort on August 24, 2010, 04:26:08 PM
Jeff something you need a break.  maybe you are so overwhelmed by LSAT and your life, but it's not necessary to be so personal in this forum, right? don't try to lose your control.

-------------------------------------
anyway, i still don't get why each professor can be hired once.  because R can be hired in 93, 94, and 95 without violating the rules.  if it is given in the game something like "each professor can only be hired in one year", then i could understand. but it doesn't?

I wasn't getting personal, sorry if you misinterpreted it that way.  Everyone occasionally has brain farts (especially while draining their brain studying for the LSAT), I didn't mean it as an insult.

Each professor was hired in a particular year and common sense dictates that (s)he then became an employee.  Yeah, one could wonder about the possibilities of after being hired, parting ways for a while and then getting re-hired later, but this is not the logical reasoning section that involves having to deal with assumptions in arguments and such.  I think the two variable sets you are given to distribute amongst each other were defined clearly.  7 professors, 7 different years, no professor repeats.

I suspect that your confusion about the variable set use constraints is because you don't have to fill each of the years and can have 2 professors hired in the same year, leaving an unfilled year slot you think you need to fill in with something when you make the correct deductions creating your set-up.

Title: Re: PT35-S3-Game4 (Oct, 2001)
Post by: silverapplejam on August 26, 2010, 02:30:33 AM
well, i think the "common sense" eventually convinces me, unflawed, it is uncommon for a professor to be hired twice or so in the same univer..  I just never thought common sense can be tested in the game section as well.  maybe such kind tough question only appears in the last of the four games.

i also googled brain fart.  hope my brain won't have a major brain f..t  when i take the test!
Title: Re: PT35-S3-Game4 (Oct, 2001)
Post by: Jeffort on August 26, 2010, 12:27:50 PM
well, i think the "common sense" eventually convinces me, unflawed, it is uncommon for a professor to be hired twice or so in the same univer..  I just never thought common sense can be tested in the game section as well.  maybe such kind tough question only appears in the last of the four games.

i also googled brain fart.  hope my brain won't have a major brain f..t  when i take the test!

Yeah, the LG section does occasionally test reading comprehension and common sense thinking to some degree here and there.  Typically, even if stuff is phrased in wordy or awkward ways or whatever in a game, the parameters are still presented to leave no reasonable ambiguity about the elements and constraints.  I'm surprised they didn't include the phrase 'was hired in exactly one of the years...' like they typically do in order to avoid leaving any arguable possible ambiguity about whether you can re-use the professor variables.

If and when you ever have confusion about a rule or major parameter of a game, evaluate which of the two interpretations works with the game and questions.  If one interpretation leads to multiple questions appearing to have no correct answer or multiple correct answers then it is clearly incompatible with the game and you go with the other interpretation since every question clearly has one correct and four clearly incorrect answer choices.  Like what Earlcat pointed out about question #22 having 5 correct answer choices if you can repeat professors.

lol that you googled brain fart!   :D