Law School Discussion

PT34 - June 2001 section IV #23 logic games

PT34 - June 2001 section IV #23 logic games
« on: August 08, 2010, 03:11:05 AM »
I am so confused about #23. In the condition part, it already tells us "if L is at Souderton, then both N and P are at Randsborough", then why in #23, the right answer (E) indicates that both N and P CANNOT be a pair at Rands? are they contradictive? appreciate your help! 

Re: PT34 - June 2001 section IV #23 logic games
« Reply #1 on: August 08, 2010, 05:38:11 AM »
What is the entire question say?

Re: PT34 - June 2001 section IV #23 logic games
« Reply #2 on: August 10, 2010, 08:24:24 AM »
it is funny when i realize that i've been set by the question maker at the beginning, now i see the true color of them.  i admit i fell in, thanks for the tip otherwise i will never get it how i fell.  it is logically impeccable but i just dont' like the way they make this game.  i hope they won't do it again, or they just do it on all games so i just grab the rule and don't have to pay attention to all the premises.  i guess being a lawyer you have to be this alert. 

EarlCat

  • ****
  • 2082
  • i'm in ur LSAT blowin' ur curve
    • View Profile
    • EarlDoesLSAT.com
Re: PT34 - June 2001 section IV #23 logic games
« Reply #3 on: August 14, 2010, 06:48:05 PM »
huh?