# Practice LSAT Prep Test 34 (June 2001) - Section 4 (Logic Games) - Game 4

Alternative video player

### JY's explanation:

ccbot/2.0

Prep Test Question Keywords: six, doctors, juarez, kudrow, longtree, nance, onawa, palermo, two, clinics, souderton, randsborough

If you had trouble with this game, you should practice the other Games that are similar to this one (listed below).  That way, you’ll learn to see how the Logic Games really are all the same. That’s how high scorers see them and that’s how you can improve your speed, accuracy, and score.

Start with the Games in the same set as this Game.  Then, work on the Games in the other sets.

The Basic+ In/Out Games Set
PT34-Game4 | PT41-Game3
_________________________

The Basic In/Out Games Set
PT33-Game2 | PT40-Game4 | PT45-Game3 | PT58-Game2

The Easy In/Out Games Set
PT24-Game1 | PT29-Game1 | PT36-Game1 | PT48-Game1 | PT54-Game1 | PT63-Game1

The Medium In/Out Games Set
PT20-Game2 | PT39-Game4 | PT47-Game2 | PT58-Game4 | PT59-Game3

The Difficult In/Out Games Set
PT31-Game2 | PT32-Game2 | PT49-Game3

### Still confused? Ask a question below!

• Quinn Nguyen

How did you know to attach the / N –> O to the /P chain? Or does it even matter? I did this game before the video and made irrelevant the chain from L –> /N –> O.

In cases of contradiction where one chain leads to O and another leads to /O, do you just arbitrarily pick a path?

• Quinn Nguyen

Does it make a difference if we were to do this as a two-group game? I wouldn’t be able to label it as in/out intuitively.

Are two group games always easier when turned into in-out?

• http://7sage.com/ J.Y. Ping

Two group games In/out games

• Quinn Nguyen

How did you know to attach the / N –> O to the /P chain? Or does it even matter? I did this game before the video and made irrelevant the chain from L –> /N –> O.

In cases of contradiction where one chain leads to O and another leads to /O, do you just arbitrarily pick a path?

• Mark Tenorio

Okay I think I’m a little confused about question 23 about the either or.

I thought if the conditional was

A—>/B

then it’s a cannot be both. If the conditional was

/A—>B

then they both can be together.

• Graeme Blake

You need to think about these things in terms of in/out.

A –> /B They can’t both be IN, they can both be OUT
/A –> B They can’t both be OUT, they can both be IN

• Mark Tenorio

O okay. I think I’m starting to get it. I think I was just getting confused by seeing it in those terms.

This is where the whole sufficient failed and necessary satisfied rules kick in.

Like for A–>/B if /B is out, then A can be either out or in because /B is already out and does not need the help of A to be out…because it’s already out!

Likewise for /A—>B

if B is in the in group, the A can be either in or out because the B is already in. However, they both cannot be out because whenever A is in the out group, that automatically makes B in the in group.

• Graeme Blake

Yes, exactly.

• Mark Tenorio

And yes, I think that was the problem for me. I didn’t quite shift gears when I was thinking about the both in both out rules in terms of the in/out games.

• Mariah Partida

Initially, I chained up the rules differently and found that L implies both O and ~O (instead of N and ~N). Is this possible, or did I just chain it up incorrectly?

• http://7sage.com/ J.Y. Ping

Same thing! You’re golden. Now, if you can tell me why it’s the same thing, that would make you platinum.