@yam with a BUNCH of practice you'll get very quick I feel like. That is gonna require A LOT of drilling, i'm sure that will happen once we finish all of the LR section and RC section and spend majority of time drilling for this exam to get familiar with question types and how to answer them!!
Is the distinction between "must be allowed to work alone" and "must work alone" not relevant here just because none of the answer choices pick up on it? JY doesn't either, but it seems to me that being permitted to work alone is not at all the same thing as being required to work alone. #help
JY does make a quick distinction between "must be allowed to work alone" and "must work alone" at the 5:00 mark in the video. Ultimately, the distinction doesn't matter because "allowed" is a modifier for the general concept "work alone." J's conditional rule is not based on the modification of "alone" rather on the fact that the coders "ought to work alone." What then matters is whether the coders work alone or not. Not whether they are "allowed to" or from whom they receive permission.
For example, J's rule is MOST productive → work alone. (Remember the Subject - Predicate lesson). MUST introduces the Necessary concept. So, IF a coder is one of the ones that is MOST productive in general (meets the sufficient) they MUST work alone (whether they are allowed to or not). The question then becomes, what are you going to negate so that the principle fails? Are you going to negate "allowed"? or are you going to negate them working alone? If we negate allowed, what does that look like? Can we still assume that even if they are not allowed J's rule still stands? According to J's Sufficient, she doesn't care whether they are "allowed" to or not. Her sufficient DEMANDS they do. The Sufficient always runs the table. So she'll probably be like IDGAF if they are allowed to or not. I want these SOBs working alone! That's how strong Sufficient/Necessity conditions are. We cannot make the Necessary condition the Sufficient. We cannot say "IF allowed THEN work alone" or "IF allowed or not allowed to work alone THEN they're MOST productive." So it's important to really grasp both domains. Meeting the powerful sufficient that the MOST productive generally are the SOBs that are MANDATED to work alone.
By the way, answer (C) is tricky because it baits you to think MOST is relative by conflating MOST with MORE productive. So they pin two coders next to each other and say one is more productive than the other. But notice J's sufficient. Did she say MOST productive relatively (MORE). No, she said MOST productive without modification, which means most productive as a whole. As JY said, (B) fails the Sufficient. When a conditional fails the Sufficient, it means anything goes. Shit gets wild. "Rule falls apart."
I think it's because it says they are assigned or that they "are to work together." To me this seems that they are not given the option in these cases.
I believe that Jo's principle is still violated in answer "E" even if that principle is read only to require the option of working alone.
My reading of"E" gives the workers no option regarding their work environment, stating they have been assigned to work together and "they are to work together at the same workstation".
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.
Vanessa: computer codes must be written by a pair of programmers to prevent only one person from understanding the code that is being made
Jon: best programmers carry the team. they are really productive compared to the rest. these best programmers work best alone, so the most productive programmers must work alone.
What i am getting: 1. if you are most productive→work alone
2. if you are most productive→work alone
we are looking to find something that violates these principles.
A: fact is they are average so must work together. consistent with rules so out
B: again, not most productive so must work together, consistent with rules so out
C: again, not most productive so must work together, consistent with rules so out
D: yolanda is most productive, so she must work alone. but this answer says she's working with someone. violates rule so this is the answer.
E: again, not most productive so must work together, consistent with rules so out.
This is not a particularly difficult question and what I am about to say was not relevant in this case but I thought it might be worth noting in the off-chance there is ever a similar question. Jo's rule says the most productive programmers must be ALLOWED to work by themselves, not that they must work by themselves. Since the rest of the answer choices are easily consistent, that makes D the correct choice, however it should be noted that there would not be an inconsistency if in the answer choice Yolanda was allowed to work by herself but choose to work with someone else. It is implied that that is not the case with the use of the word assigned, but it is worth noting anyways that her working with someone else is not inconsistent by itself.
Doesn't Venessa's rule contradict Jo's rule since "All programmers" would include even the most productive ones? I know I'm being nitpicky, but I'm really just wondering whether we are allowed to use Jo's exception because he speaks second, and therefore is thought of to be in dialogue with Venessa?
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.
my issue with this question is that in the stimulus, Jo states the most productive programmers must be allowed to work by themselves. My problem is with the word "allowed". Like ok yea they must be allowed to work alone but does that mean they have to actually do it? D (the correct answer) states "they are to work together at the same workstation", I don't see how thats incorrect (how its inconsistent with Jo's principle), because they very well could choose to work together at the same station, just because they're allowed to work alone doesn't mean they have to choose so. idk if my explanation made sense but if anyone gets what I'm trying to say can u please explain.
@rydlerjune I asked the chat and here's what it said: The distinction you're making is correct in principle. "Must be allowed to work alone" is a permission claim, not a mandate. In isolation, that phrasing would only guarantee the option to work solo — it wouldn't forbid someone from choosing to pair up voluntarily.
But look at what "assigned" is doing in the answer choice. The scenario in (D) doesn't say Yolanda chose to work with Mike — it says she "has been assigned to work with Mike... at the same workstation." An assignment is external and binding; it's not a choice she's making. If Jo's rule guarantees that the most productive programmers must retain the option to work alone, then forcibly assigning her a partner strips that option away entirely. She's not being "allowed" to work solo — she's being compelled into a pair.
So the violation isn't "she worked with someone, which is forbidden." It's "she was assigned into a pairing, which removes the very allowance/permission Jo's rule guarantees her." Contrast that with a hypothetical answer choice where the most productive programmer chooses to team up voluntarily — that wouldn't violate Jo's rule, since she'd still have had the option to go solo.
That's a genuinely tricky distinction between "permission" and "requirement" language, and it's exactly the kind of nuance that trips people up on Must Be False questions.
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?
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.
for answer choice E, how can we assume that single work station and same work station both mean the same thing, I was going to choose E because it said same, but in the stimulus the rule was single work station ( I thought meaning their individual station)
Tbh, I think you just have to assume that "single work station" and "same work station" are the same because they imply the same thing. I think the wording in the AC might not always be an exact match to the stimulus, so we have to be a bit flexible. That's how I approached it, but I get what you're saying.
77 comments
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
@yam with a BUNCH of practice you'll get very quick I feel like. That is gonna require A LOT of drilling, i'm sure that will happen once we finish all of the LR section and RC section and spend majority of time drilling for this exam to get familiar with question types and how to answer them!!
Is the distinction between "must be allowed to work alone" and "must work alone" not relevant here just because none of the answer choices pick up on it? JY doesn't either, but it seems to me that being permitted to work alone is not at all the same thing as being required to work alone. #help
JY does make a quick distinction between "must be allowed to work alone" and "must work alone" at the 5:00 mark in the video. Ultimately, the distinction doesn't matter because "allowed" is a modifier for the general concept "work alone." J's conditional rule is not based on the modification of "alone" rather on the fact that the coders "ought to work alone." What then matters is whether the coders work alone or not. Not whether they are "allowed to" or from whom they receive permission.
For example, J's rule is MOST productive → work alone. (Remember the Subject - Predicate lesson). MUST introduces the Necessary concept. So, IF a coder is one of the ones that is MOST productive in general (meets the sufficient) they MUST work alone (whether they are allowed to or not). The question then becomes, what are you going to negate so that the principle fails? Are you going to negate "allowed"? or are you going to negate them working alone? If we negate allowed, what does that look like? Can we still assume that even if they are not allowed J's rule still stands? According to J's Sufficient, she doesn't care whether they are "allowed" to or not. Her sufficient DEMANDS they do. The Sufficient always runs the table. So she'll probably be like IDGAF if they are allowed to or not. I want these SOBs working alone! That's how strong Sufficient/Necessity conditions are. We cannot make the Necessary condition the Sufficient. We cannot say "IF allowed THEN work alone" or "IF allowed or not allowed to work alone THEN they're MOST productive." So it's important to really grasp both domains. Meeting the powerful sufficient that the MOST productive generally are the SOBs that are MANDATED to work alone.
By the way, answer (C) is tricky because it baits you to think MOST is relative by conflating MOST with MORE productive. So they pin two coders next to each other and say one is more productive than the other. But notice J's sufficient. Did she say MOST productive relatively (MORE). No, she said MOST productive without modification, which means most productive as a whole. As JY said, (B) fails the Sufficient. When a conditional fails the Sufficient, it means anything goes. Shit gets wild. "Rule falls apart."
I think it's because it says they are assigned or that they "are to work together." To me this seems that they are not given the option in these cases.
I had the same question! Why doesn't this distinction matter, because it seems to be a very important distinction to me?
can someone pleaseeee answer this!
#feedback
I believe that Jo's principle is still violated in answer "E" even if that principle is read only to require the option of working alone.
My reading of"E" gives the workers no option regarding their work environment, stating they have been assigned to work together and "they are to work together at the same workstation".
#feedback Should be re-recorded to remove references to LG
these are feeling way more straightforward than the foundations examples
Who’s taking in juneeee
June 7th!!, when are you taking it ?
June 6th! We got this🥹 I feel so behind
brutal for Olga and kensuke's
feelings
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 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.
Personally, this was by far the question that took me the most time to completely understand...
rip lg section
@atticus.j619 good riddance. I hated LG and always will. 35 min is simply not enough time for those questions
dumbed down translation:
Vanessa: computer codes must be written by a pair of programmers to prevent only one person from understanding the code that is being made
Jon: best programmers carry the team. they are really productive compared to the rest. these best programmers work best alone, so the most productive programmers must work alone.
What i am getting: 1. if you are most productive→work alone
2. if you are
most productive→work alonewe are looking to find something that violates these principles.
A: fact is they are average so must work together. consistent with rules so out
B: again, not most productive so must work together, consistent with rules so out
C: again, not most productive so must work together, consistent with rules so out
D: yolanda is most productive, so she must work alone. but this answer says she's working with someone. violates rule so this is the answer.
E: again, not most productive so must work together, consistent with rules so out.
@ariellejoycecaubang27525 imo this is a way better explanation of the question than the video.
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 are the wooooooorst ):
"I don't see how you can hate from outside the club, you can't even get in!"
This is not a particularly difficult question and what I am about to say was not relevant in this case but I thought it might be worth noting in the off-chance there is ever a similar question. Jo's rule says the most productive programmers must be ALLOWED to work by themselves, not that they must work by themselves. Since the rest of the answer choices are easily consistent, that makes D the correct choice, however it should be noted that there would not be an inconsistency if in the answer choice Yolanda was allowed to work by herself but choose to work with someone else. It is implied that that is not the case with the use of the word assigned, but it is worth noting anyways that her working with someone else is not inconsistent by itself.
Doesn't Venessa's rule contradict Jo's rule since "All programmers" would include even the most productive ones? I know I'm being nitpicky, but I'm really just wondering whether we are allowed to use Jo's exception because he speaks second, and therefore is thought of to be in dialogue with Venessa?
yes I had the same question???
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.
So basically stimulus mentioning ''writing idiosyncratic code'' and E mentioning writing idiosyncratic code was both irrelevant red herring?
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
my issue with this question is that in the stimulus, Jo states the most productive programmers must be allowed to work by themselves. My problem is with the word "allowed". Like ok yea they must be allowed to work alone but does that mean they have to actually do it? D (the correct answer) states "they are to work together at the same workstation", I don't see how thats incorrect (how its inconsistent with Jo's principle), because they very well could choose to work together at the same station, just because they're allowed to work alone doesn't mean they have to choose so. idk if my explanation made sense but if anyone gets what I'm trying to say can u please explain.
@rydlerjune I agree with you and thought the same thing. Simply because they are allowed does not translate to HAVE to work individually
@rydlerjune I asked the chat and here's what it said: The distinction you're making is correct in principle. "Must be allowed to work alone" is a permission claim, not a mandate. In isolation, that phrasing would only guarantee the option to work solo — it wouldn't forbid someone from choosing to pair up voluntarily.
But look at what "assigned" is doing in the answer choice. The scenario in (D) doesn't say Yolanda chose to work with Mike — it says she "has been assigned to work with Mike... at the same workstation." An assignment is external and binding; it's not a choice she's making. If Jo's rule guarantees that the most productive programmers must retain the option to work alone, then forcibly assigning her a partner strips that option away entirely. She's not being "allowed" to work solo — she's being compelled into a pair.
So the violation isn't "she worked with someone, which is forbidden." It's "she was assigned into a pairing, which removes the very allowance/permission Jo's rule guarantees her." Contrast that with a hypothetical answer choice where the most productive programmer chooses to team up voluntarily — that wouldn't violate Jo's rule, since she'd still have had the option to go solo.
That's a genuinely tricky distinction between "permission" and "requirement" language, and it's exactly the kind of nuance that trips people up on Must Be False questions.
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?
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.
for answer choice E, how can we assume that single work station and same work station both mean the same thing, I was going to choose E because it said same, but in the stimulus the rule was single work station ( I thought meaning their individual station)
Tbh, I think you just have to assume that "single work station" and "same work station" are the same because they imply the same thing. I think the wording in the AC might not always be an exact match to the stimulus, so we have to be a bit flexible. That's how I approached it, but I get what you're saying.
Poor Olga no one cares about how she feels