Hmmm I really wish I tried this question on my own before the explaination. I loved how JY layed out the rule/carve out and it made it all super easy and straightforward. But I wonder if I would have been able to approach it it the same way?
Still confused about E. How is it that idiosyncratic is irrelevant even though it goes against the principle of Vanessa, when 2 are together they dont write that type of code but they will since thats what they do?
@GDatria715 the writing idiosyncratic writing would be solved with Vanessa’s rule. And because neither are the most productive it doesn’t violate Jo’s rule either.
I get why the others are incorrect but still hate when questions pick and choose when to be precise with wording in the stimulus & correct answer. Being allowed to work by yourself and MUST work by yourself are two different things :/
@DeliaCanDoIt! Same here, so confused on: working together at a single workstation and the "same" workstation. It's different so seems like I am missing the true puzzle piece.... : /
@KarlieS I think working at a "single workstation" implies that they work together at that station. If you work together at a single station, you can assume that the single station is shared among the both of you and therefore the "same" workstation.
Trying to interpret the "same" as to mean that they are different but identical (how I think you're defining it) is I think too much of a stretch in this context, especially when D) breaks the rules of the stimulus in a big conceptual way.
I understand that answer D is the best choice among all, yet I don't think the answer holds up under close scrutiny and that it is necessarily (it can be though and most likely is) inconsistent with Jo's statement:
1) Jo's claim is on the best programmers on the team and not on the most productive ones. Even though the best programmers are TYPICALLY (yet not necessarily) more productive.
2) BPs generally (not necessarily again) work best when working alone. Yet saying that they must be allowed to work by themselves doesn't mean that they can't work with someone together ever. It's simply stating that they should be given the option to do so.
@allyldh For the first part of your comment, Jo says, "The most productive programmers must be allowed to work by themselves." Their rule is clearly focused on the most productive programmers. The "best programmer" language is not a part of the rule that Jo laid out. It's a part of the setup for their rule.
For the second part of your comment, answer D says, "[Yolanda] has been assigned to work with Mike. They are to work together at the same workstation." She was given an order to work with Mike at the same workstation. It does not say that she chose to work with Mike. Therefore, it is inconsistent with Jo's rule that the most productive programmers should be allowed (given the option) to work alone.
Top programmers don't work together - they work alone (D is the answer that fails the rule laid out in Jo's argument). Sub par programmers work together.
All the other answers are consistent because two programmers are working together who are sub-par (they do not fit into the carve out that Jo suggests).
D is correct because if it were true that the best programmers do not work together, then why would THE top performing programmer be working with someone? They wouldn't. They would be working alone.
@Gregmjr Why do E and D refer to the "same workstation" but yet, it means alone in E but means both on E? Both say: "Work together at the same workstation"? Thx!
@KarlieS D breaks the rule established that most productive programmers do not get assigned at the same work station. The stimulus says that they are not to be assigned to the same work station. E actually follows the rule that people are who not particularly productive will work together.
All answers EXCEPT D follow the rules here. which is why D is correct. Does this help?
@AlizaGGG Vanessa's principle/rule is that all programmers should work in pairs at a shared workstation. Answer D says that Yolanda and Mike are programmers working together at a single workstation. That's consistent with the principle Vanessa laid out. Whether Vanessa agrees with Jo's principle doesn't matter. We just need to apply each of their principles to each answer and find the one that does not align with both of their principles.
So far, I'm following along with the content and the approaches to the question types well, but I'm struggling to meet the target time when doing drills and usually leave 2-3 questions blank to go over during BR. Any tips on getting to the answer choices faster?
I think the main goal is to focus on accuracy before you start to incorporate timing. Consistently drilling and reviewing is key to this test. That is why I think it is so learnable. I am in the beginning of the curriculum but won't focus on timing until I learn all the question types, memorized the strategies, and am getting my untimed drills correctly.
For the future: A tip I read is to see how long it takes you to complete a normal PT section, without worrying about the time. See where you score and slowly start doing timed sections with that time. Again, focus on accuracy and review, review, review! Then, repeatedly start taking drilled sections by chipping away at the timer (increments of 2-5 minutes) until you reach 35 minutes. You should only start chipping away if you are maintaining accuracy!
My mind went blank when reading all of this for some reason. I was still able to get it right by choosing the answer that went on to negate the other answer choices.
I got this right but was confused about whether for a lot of the options we could say "consistent" for Jo when all we know is that she believes that productive → alone and, therefore, /alone → /productive and so we don't know she feels about /productive people... For A I was very tempted to say "unsupported" for Jo because she doesn't address /productive in her statement but after doing some research I realized that on the LSAT we must understand that if something does not contradict a rule (for example two productive people working together) then that is CONSISTENT with the rule. However, if it is the case that we don't have enough information to determine if something contradicts or is aligned with a rule THEN that is UNSUPPORTED - we just don't know. Here, in A and in other cases, we knew that /productive people working together was not breaking Jo's rule so that is considered consistent
But the passage does not state they "must work alone," it states they "must be ALLOWED" to work alone. Therefore, dosen't that mean they are simply given the CHOICE to work alone or with others?
Maybe, but she was not described as choosing to work with her stationmate. She was assigned. While this is a good loophole to keep in mind, from what we can tell she was instructed to work with another employee therefore breaking the second rule.
Maybe I’m overreading things, but I think the rule is saying that the most productive programmers must be allowed to work alone, not that they must work alone. The word "allowed" seems important because it suggests they should have the option to work alone if it helps them be more productive, but not that it’s an absolute requirement. If they meant it as a strict rule, I feel like it would’ve just said “must work by themselves.”
I know it’s a small difference, but that’s how I’m reading it. And while it probably doesn’t make a big difference here, I feel like I often get questions wrong because I miss little things like this, idk.
My interpretation was that by assigning them together, the pair was not even given the option to work by themselves. In another case, they may have been allowed to work alone but instead chose to work together, but in the correct answer, they were forced to work together.
72 comments
Hmmm I really wish I tried this question on my own before the explaination. I loved how JY layed out the rule/carve out and it made it all super easy and straightforward. But I wonder if I would have been able to approach it it the same way?
Still confused about E. How is it that idiosyncratic is irrelevant even though it goes against the principle of Vanessa, when 2 are together they dont write that type of code but they will since thats what they do?
@GDatria715 the writing idiosyncratic writing would be solved with Vanessa’s rule. And because neither are the most productive it doesn’t violate Jo’s rule either.
these are feeling way more straightforward than the foundations examples
So basically stimulus mentioning ''writing idiosyncratic code'' and E mentioning writing idiosyncratic code was both irrelevant red herring?
"I don't see how you can hate from outside the club, you can't even get in!"
I understand the question but didn't catch that Jo was only refering to the subset of best programmers. I need to watch for that
these questions take so long tho like how am i sposed to get it in 2 mins when i need to read every single option too
I get why the others are incorrect but still hate when questions pick and choose when to be precise with wording in the stimulus & correct answer. Being allowed to work by yourself and MUST work by yourself are two different things :/
@DeliaCanDoIt! Same here, so confused on: working together at a single workstation and the "same" workstation. It's different so seems like I am missing the true puzzle piece.... : /
@KarlieS I think working at a "single workstation" implies that they work together at that station. If you work together at a single station, you can assume that the single station is shared among the both of you and therefore the "same" workstation.
Trying to interpret the "same" as to mean that they are different but identical (how I think you're defining it) is I think too much of a stretch in this context, especially when D) breaks the rules of the stimulus in a big conceptual way.
brutal for Olga and kensuke's
feelings
Personally, this was by far the question that took me the most time to completely understand...
This type of question is very fun imo, I enjoy it a lot.
Can we get some Fs in the chat for Logic Games? Lmao
I understand that answer D is the best choice among all, yet I don't think the answer holds up under close scrutiny and that it is necessarily (it can be though and most likely is) inconsistent with Jo's statement:
1) Jo's claim is on the best programmers on the team and not on the most productive ones. Even though the best programmers are TYPICALLY (yet not necessarily) more productive.
2) BPs generally (not necessarily again) work best when working alone. Yet saying that they must be allowed to work by themselves doesn't mean that they can't work with someone together ever. It's simply stating that they should be given the option to do so.
@allyldh For the first part of your comment, Jo says, "The most productive programmers must be allowed to work by themselves." Their rule is clearly focused on the most productive programmers. The "best programmer" language is not a part of the rule that Jo laid out. It's a part of the setup for their rule.
For the second part of your comment, answer D says, "[Yolanda] has been assigned to work with Mike. They are to work together at the same workstation." She was given an order to work with Mike at the same workstation. It does not say that she chose to work with Mike. Therefore, it is inconsistent with Jo's rule that the most productive programmers should be allowed (given the option) to work alone.
@allyldh The rules apply as follows:
Top programmers don't work together - they work alone (D is the answer that fails the rule laid out in Jo's argument). Sub par programmers work together.
All the other answers are consistent because two programmers are working together who are sub-par (they do not fit into the carve out that Jo suggests).
D is correct because if it were true that the best programmers do not work together, then why would THE top performing programmer be working with someone? They wouldn't. They would be working alone.
@Gregmjr Why do E and D refer to the "same workstation" but yet, it means alone in E but means both on E? Both say: "Work together at the same workstation"? Thx!
@KarlieS D breaks the rule established that most productive programmers do not get assigned at the same work station. The stimulus says that they are not to be assigned to the same work station. E actually follows the rule that people are who not particularly productive will work together.
All answers EXCEPT D follow the rules here. which is why D is correct. Does this help?
@Gregmjr I see it now. Thank you!
How is D consistent with principles expressed by Vanessa? we don't know if she agrees to Jo's principle?
@AlizaGGG Vanessa's principle/rule is that all programmers should work in pairs at a shared workstation. Answer D says that Yolanda and Mike are programmers working together at a single workstation. That's consistent with the principle Vanessa laid out. Whether Vanessa agrees with Jo's principle doesn't matter. We just need to apply each of their principles to each answer and find the one that does not align with both of their principles.
Who’s taking in juneeee
June 7th!!, when are you taking it ?
June 6th! We got this🥹 I feel so behind
I don't understand. do we need this or is it logic games and they haven't updated or removed it?
qurik jan, petka. Sovori
So far, I'm following along with the content and the approaches to the question types well, but I'm struggling to meet the target time when doing drills and usually leave 2-3 questions blank to go over during BR. Any tips on getting to the answer choices faster?
I think the main goal is to focus on accuracy before you start to incorporate timing. Consistently drilling and reviewing is key to this test. That is why I think it is so learnable. I am in the beginning of the curriculum but won't focus on timing until I learn all the question types, memorized the strategies, and am getting my untimed drills correctly.
For the future: A tip I read is to see how long it takes you to complete a normal PT section, without worrying about the time. See where you score and slowly start doing timed sections with that time. Again, focus on accuracy and review, review, review! Then, repeatedly start taking drilled sections by chipping away at the timer (increments of 2-5 minutes) until you reach 35 minutes. You should only start chipping away if you are maintaining accuracy!
@ComfyOrangeKitty Great comment! How far into the curriculum are you? I just started
My mind went blank when reading all of this for some reason. I was still able to get it right by choosing the answer that went on to negate the other answer choices.
thanks slippin jimmy
I got this right but was confused about whether for a lot of the options we could say "consistent" for Jo when all we know is that she believes that productive → alone and, therefore, /alone → /productive and so we don't know she feels about /productive people... For A I was very tempted to say "unsupported" for Jo because she doesn't address /productive in her statement but after doing some research I realized that on the LSAT we must understand that if something does not contradict a rule (for example two productive people working together) then that is CONSISTENT with the rule. However, if it is the case that we don't have enough information to determine if something contradicts or is aligned with a rule THEN that is UNSUPPORTED - we just don't know. Here, in A and in other cases, we knew that /productive people working together was not breaking Jo's rule so that is considered consistent
But the passage does not state they "must work alone," it states they "must be ALLOWED" to work alone. Therefore, dosen't that mean they are simply given the CHOICE to work alone or with others?
Maybe, but she was not described as choosing to work with her stationmate. She was assigned. While this is a good loophole to keep in mind, from what we can tell she was instructed to work with another employee therefore breaking the second rule.
This was quick
rip lg section
@atticus.j619 good riddance. I hated LG and always will. 35 min is simply not enough time for those questions
#feedback Should be re-recorded to remove references to LG
Maybe I’m overreading things, but I think the rule is saying that the most productive programmers must be allowed to work alone, not that they must work alone. The word "allowed" seems important because it suggests they should have the option to work alone if it helps them be more productive, but not that it’s an absolute requirement. If they meant it as a strict rule, I feel like it would’ve just said “must work by themselves.”
I know it’s a small difference, but that’s how I’m reading it. And while it probably doesn’t make a big difference here, I feel like I often get questions wrong because I miss little things like this, idk.
My interpretation was that by assigning them together, the pair was not even given the option to work by themselves. In another case, they may have been allowed to work alone but instead chose to work together, but in the correct answer, they were forced to work together.
Programmers = P1, P2, P3......
Programmer who is most productive = Pn.p
Rule 1: Code = P1 + P2
Rule 2: Code = Pn.p + none
D) Code = Pn.P + somebody , thus violating Rule 2 and therefore the correct answer.