LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
Re: Q7
I agree, they're the worst!
In fact, I would probably skip this problem if I were doing this section timed and then come back to it at the end.
For these questions, I start by asking myself a few things about the rule being substituted:
1. Did it link to any other rules?
2. Did it have any secondary implications? (they love to test those)
3. What were the previous limitations/freedom for the people involved in this rule?
4. How could I paraphrase the effect this rule had?
====
This rule essentially just means that we need to make sure that X comes after W and Z. However, the rule also linked to V - Z. So if I get rid of this rule, I now lose the V - Z - X connection. I need my answer choice to make sure that V still comes before X. Another limitation this rule created was that X was stuck being 5 or 6. I need to make sure X is still stuck there.
The wrong answers are all Too Permissive (they allow things that used to be forbidden) or Too Restrictive (they forbid things that used to be allowed).
(A) This means that X can only be 5 or 6. Since only U can come after X, everything else (including V, W, Z) must come before. Looks pretty good.
(B) Too restrictive: this creates a relationship between V and W, which never existed. Previously, W was allowed to come before V.
(C) Too permissive: this doesn't cover Z. This allows Z to come after X, which wasn't allowed before.
(D) Too restrictive: X and U didn't have to be consecutive before. It was possible that U was in 4 and X in 6.
(E) Tricky! This looks just like one of the things we wanted, but does it force V, W, and Z to come before X? No. Too permissive. It allows V, W, and Z to each go 6.
Make sure for some of these that you use previous work to find counterexamples. That's typically how I get rid of a couple.
(A) is correct.
Hope this helps
In fact, I would probably skip this problem if I were doing this section timed and then come back to it at the end.
For these questions, I start by asking myself a few things about the rule being substituted:
1. Did it link to any other rules?
2. Did it have any secondary implications? (they love to test those)
3. What were the previous limitations/freedom for the people involved in this rule?
4. How could I paraphrase the effect this rule had?
====
This rule essentially just means that we need to make sure that X comes after W and Z. However, the rule also linked to V - Z. So if I get rid of this rule, I now lose the V - Z - X connection. I need my answer choice to make sure that V still comes before X. Another limitation this rule created was that X was stuck being 5 or 6. I need to make sure X is still stuck there.
The wrong answers are all Too Permissive (they allow things that used to be forbidden) or Too Restrictive (they forbid things that used to be allowed).
(A) This means that X can only be 5 or 6. Since only U can come after X, everything else (including V, W, Z) must come before. Looks pretty good.
(B) Too restrictive: this creates a relationship between V and W, which never existed. Previously, W was allowed to come before V.
(C) Too permissive: this doesn't cover Z. This allows Z to come after X, which wasn't allowed before.
(D) Too restrictive: X and U didn't have to be consecutive before. It was possible that U was in 4 and X in 6.
(E) Tricky! This looks just like one of the things we wanted, but does it force V, W, and Z to come before X? No. Too permissive. It allows V, W, and Z to each go 6.
Make sure for some of these that you use previous work to find counterexamples. That's typically how I get rid of a couple.
(A) is correct.
Hope this helps
2 posts Page 1 of 1