LSAT Error!

[aeaizenman]

when one interpretation of rules lead nowhere and simpler interpretation lead somewhere, choice obvious.

My issue isn't with two "possible" interpretations to a vague rule/game. My issue is the only way the game works is by adding a rule that is not included in the rule set! The rule is "are all aboard planes that are flying in the airshow" to say that that means that the planes must be flying at the same time is not an interpretation of that rule, it would be a totally separate and additional rule! There are a great number of games (usually grouping games) that don't define the possible position of the variables as exclusive and actually many of them that explicitly allow for the variables to be placed in two or more positions in the same scenario!
I believe your point is a practical one. You aren't attempting so much as to justify the game rather you are dispensing practical advice for success on the exam. On that I will obviously agree with you, if I was solving this game on my graded test, I would hope I realize as early as possible that given the provided rule set the game is impossible and apply the additional rule on my own to solve the game.

[EarlCat]

If B would fly plane 2 in the beginning of the show and later in the show fly plane 3 would it not be true to say: B is aboard a plane and that plane is flying in the airshow. The same would be with the rest of the pilots and co-pilots whether they are flying in one or two planes.

No.  Cambridge is right.  The questions are about who IS in a plane, not who was or who will be.  Who IS in a plane requires you to consider what is possible at a given time.  There is no error in the game.  If Bob and Anna are flying on the same plane, Dave and Cindy are flying on the same plane. 

It's only about about putting game pieces in their respective slots.  Creating complex hypotheticals where an individual can be in more than one plane or the airshow taking place over several days or maybe the Blue Angels show up and fly their own planes with the co-pilots from the airshow is not what the test writers are looking for you to do.

[Julie Fern]

when one interpretation of rules lead nowhere and simpler interpretation lead somewhere, choice obvious.

My issue isn't with two "possible" interpretations to a vague rule/game. My issue is the only way the game works is by adding a rule that is not included in the rule set! The rule is "are all aboard planes that are flying in the airshow" to say that that means that the planes must be flying at the same time is not an interpretation of that rule, it would be a totally separate and additional rule! There are a great number of games (usually grouping games) that don't define the possible position of the variables as exclusive and actually many of them that explicitly allow for the variables to be placed in two or more positions in the same scenario!
I believe your point is a practical one. You aren't attempting so much as to justify the game rather you are dispensing practical advice for success on the exam. On that I will obviously agree with you, if I was solving this game on my graded test, I would hope I realize as early as possible that given the provided rule set the game is impossible and apply the additional rule on my own to solve the game.

julie not even considering details of game.  so there.

[aeaizenman]

The questions are about who IS in a plane, not who was or who will be.

A. That isn't  accurate, my questions read more like, e.g., "if Anna flies in plane 4 and Dave flies in plane 2, which of the following..." B. Even if that were the case, putting the word "is" in all-caps doesn't change the fact that it is absolutely possible and not in any way a stretch to say Anna IS on plane 4 and she IS on plane 3 during the airshow. Just as you might say "B IS in the Customer Relations course and IS in the Marketing course during the business seminar." Or more similarly to our game "B TAKES the Customer Relations course and the Marketing course during the business seminar."

It's only about about putting game pieces in their respective slots.  Creating complex hypotheticals where an individual can be in more than one plane or the airshow taking place over several days or maybe the Blue Angels show up and fly their own planes with the co-pilots from the airshow is not what the test writers are looking for you to do.

May 31, 2010, 12:53:08 PM
Don't over complicate things.  All you're doing is figuring out what blocks fit in what holes.

You seem to have a need to finish your posts with some meaningless "commonsense." Neither "putting game pieces in their respective slots" or "what blocks fit in what holes" have any relevance to the game we're discussing or to most LSAT games for that matter. Games where the variables can fill more than one position in the same game aren't rare or "complex hypotheticals" nor do they require the "Blue Angels to show up" they are actually a pretty basic game type. You seem to be prepared only to deal with the most basic of game types which call for placing an even amount of variables in an even amount of positions 1 variable per position. The actual LSAT has far more complex games and if it's too much for you than maybe the LSAT isn't for you, but in any case you definitely shouldn't be offering advice on how to prepare.

[cooleylawstudent]

The LSAT is perfect and infoulable!

[Julie Fern]

The questions are about who IS in a plane, not who was or who will be.

A. That isn't  accurate, my questions read more like, e.g., "if Anna flies in plane 4 and Dave flies in plane 2, which of the following..." B. Even if that were the case, putting the word "is" in all-caps doesn't change the fact that it is absolutely possible and not in any way a stretch to say Anna IS on plane 4 and she IS on plane 3 during the airshow. Just as you might say "B IS in the Customer Relations course and IS in the Marketing course during the business seminar." Or more similarly to our game "B TAKES the Customer Relations course and the Marketing course during the business seminar."

It's only about about putting game pieces in their respective slots.  Creating complex hypotheticals where an individual can be in more than one plane or the airshow taking place over several days or maybe the Blue Angels show up and fly their own planes with the co-pilots from the airshow is not what the test writers are looking for you to do.

May 31, 2010, 12:53:08 PM
Don't over complicate things.  All you're doing is figuring out what blocks fit in what holes.

You seem to have a need to finish your posts with some meaningless "commonsense." Neither "putting game pieces in their respective slots" or "what blocks fit in what holes" have any relevance to the game we're discussing or to most LSAT games for that matter. Games where the variables can fill more than one position in the same game aren't rare or "complex hypotheticals" nor do they require the "Blue Angels to show up" they are actually a pretty basic game type. You seem to be prepared only to deal with the most basic of game types which call for placing an even amount of variables in an even amount of positions 1 variable per position. The actual LSAT has far more complex games and if it's too much for you than maybe the LSAT isn't for you, but in any case you definitely shouldn't be offering advice on how to prepare.

oh my.

[aeaizenman]

The LSAT is perfect and infoulable!

well said! sometimes it seems like these so called "LSAT Experts" are so religious about that notion that not only are they sure there is an answer to any question, they answer with that notion as their main premise. Take Julie Fern for example:

when interpret rules so that can't proceed, reconsider

[Julie Fern]

The LSAT is perfect and infoulable!

well said! sometimes it seems like these so called "LSAT Experts" are so religious about that notion that not only are they sure there is an answer to any question, they answer with that notion as their main premise. Take Julie Fern for example:

when interpret rules so that can't proceed, reconsider

julie never say julie anything.

but look at it this way, putzes:  you ones can't do problem.

go figure.

[Julie Fern]

you welcome.

[aeaizenman]

julie never say julie anything.

but look at it this way, putzes:  you ones can't do problem.

go figure.

Ok...I'm not sure I understood what was said, but I think I get the gist of it. We have the problem, if we can't solve the game! Duh!

So beside that being just another solid example of what I said (LSAT being God and anything that seems to contradict its perfection must not exist) it again has no bearing on my question. I, in my original post, stated that I realize there is a way to solve this game (if you add an additional rule) and that I would appreciate an explanation as to why that rule isn't missing (e.g. the game is solvable without that rule, the given rules themselves mandate that they all fly at the same time), but what do Julie (and Earl to an extent) have to offer instead (and I'm paraphrasing here), 'No, you're wrong cuz the LSAT must be right!'

Go figure!

oh and Thank you

you welcome.