User Avatar
victorsbao682
Joined
Apr 2025
Subscription
Free
User Avatar
victorsbao682
Monday, Nov 28 2022

I want to address your concern over feeling as if you did not "earn" the right answer.

Definitely retain a few untouched, ideally recent, tests for full, timed, simulated test sessions for your actual test. But you can still utilize your previous test and questions productively in your studying.

Sure, if you take a test with some questions that you remember the right answer was A or D or whatever and you just pick it because you remember it, then that score is most likely unrepresentative of your skill level. So do be mindful about how many tests you have in reserve.

But even if you have seen a question before, you can still re-use a question productively if you can, honestly and to complete certainty, perform the reasoning and operations that led you to the correct answer, as well as eliminate conclusively the four incorrect answers, you can consider that answer "earned". That is around 100 correct answers and 400 incorrect answers on a test. If you can accomplish that, then that thought process has been engraved in your brain and that time and effort has made you better at the LSAT. You have roughly 10,000 questions and 50,000 answer choices to do this.

If you have done an LG before, try to solve it in a different way and maybe you will find a more accurate or efficient method. Try solving a game doing only inferences and not brute forcing any answers. Try to identify more inferences up front that you haven't made before. Try to do a game with only your initial setup and draw no further diagrams for any of the questions. Try to solve a game without writing anything down. Try to solve a game accurately below target time.

Similarly, you might recall details and answers from an RC passage, but a re-take can still be valuable if similarly, you find absolute certain support for every answer and eliminate with certainty every wrong answer. Dissect the passage in detail, diagram the arguments, and locate support for every question. Try to do an RC section without writing anything down. Try to do an RC section using only your notes and not going back to the passage.

If you revisit an old test and dissect the questions to 180 and understand all the mental processes that got you there, then you have still earned those answers. And by understanding and solidifying all those mental processes, you have improved your LSAT skills. Periodically condition those mental processes with a new brand new test and see how you do, maybe every week or so. And while the real LSAT will be different, it will also be kind of the same...

User Avatar
victorsbao682
Monday, Nov 28 2022

Good morning,

E doesn't have any effect on the argument because the premises concern the number of visits per representative, and not the number of visits per physician, and thereby does not address the flawed necessary assumption in the argument. From the premises, it cannot be determined if invididual physicians received more or fewer visits.

The argument depends on the assumption that fewer visits per representative indicates that the promotion is counterproductive, and there are many ways that the assumption can be negated, which A directly addresses - fewer visits yes, but more time to each physician can be interpreted as not counterproductive.

Let's make those marginal gains in this marginal game.

Looking for like-minded LSAT loving loonies, preferably already PTing 170+ and can BR 175-180 with a goal of achieving PT-BR convergence and planning to absolutely kill it for the August 2022, maybe beyond.

Intending to discuss and document inferences that break LGs wide open, reading strategies that illuminate the densest RC passages, authoritatively reasoning the most convoluted LR questions, identifying and dodging LSAT writers' most subtle question traps, and making the most of all 2100 precious seconds of an LSAT timed section. Also intend to analyze common patterns of LSAT sections and questions with the intent of being able to identify inferences and predict questions and anticipate answers before even attacking the questions.

Planning on regularly scheduled strategy discussion workshopping, coordinated competitive timed PT takes, and exhaustively thorough and accurate blind review. Goal of at least a few hours of productive LSAT time daily.

DM with your info and availability, maybe a list of some of your untouched PTs. Will determine a workable schedule and setup zoom sessions or a discord server. Let's gooooo.

User Avatar
victorsbao682
Monday, Jun 27 2022

Not common advice given on the forum, but try to go extremely slowly on a game set with intent to complete a game with the most complete upfront inferences.

For each question, identify the key inference that it is implied to be testing. Take unrestricted time each question with the fewest steps possible - avoid brute force testing each answer choice. Sometimes you might find an even cleaner way of solving a question than those of the 7sage videos. Over time you might develop LSAT inference 6th sense, or at least familiarity with the types of inferences the LG sections frequently test.

LG questions and sections are intentionally written to be more items than normal human brains can process sequentially and test via brute force in 35 minutes. Rather, the intent of each question is to test higher and higher level inferences as the game progresses. Especially true in global MBF/CBT questions. They can be a huge time sink if you haven't realized the inference, but will fall away quickly if the inference is clear. Typically the clue is in the pattern of the answer choices.

Also:

Attack MBT answer choices targeting only determinate elements.

Attack CBT answer choices targeting only indeterminate items elements.

DM for specific examples or sections if you have questions.

User Avatar
victorsbao682
Monday, Jul 25 2022

Some mistaken conclusions drawn from the announcements here.

Background: The LSAT analytical reasoning section in its current form was ruled to be an unreasonable barrier to legally blind test takers due to its reliance on visual diagramming. LSAC announced that will be researching and developing new forms of logic games in the interest of fairness.

Some unexpected atypical experimental sections on the June 2022 were issued for LSAC's testing new simplified game types with follow-up survey questions regarding use of diagramming. This is most likely the direction that the games will change rather than outright removal of logic games.

User Avatar
victorsbao682
Sunday, Jul 24 2022

On official LSAT test day you will log into Lawhub to take the test.

User Avatar
victorsbao682
Saturday, Jul 24 2021

I think having multiple study resources would not be detrimental to your efforts. In my experience, the 7sage curriculum has been significant in my own improvements and I find it to highly valuable. I have not tried Powerscore but I am sure it is a valuable resource as well. No need to be exclusive to one or the other. One resource's method or explanation may resonate with you more than the other.

It seems like you have some experience with the LSAT already, so I don't believe it would be a waste for you to take a PT, especially if it allows you to identify where your strengths and weaknesses are at this time so that you can focus your areas of study. In the 7sage curriculum the diagnostic PT is located about 5 hours into the whole course.

Regarding notes, I personally find it most useful to write detailed notes for any question that I am not 100% certain on the correctness of the answer choices so that I can get an understanding of my thought process. For example, consider writing clearly how each answer choice is right or wrong. If I picked an incorrect answer choice, I will note what my thought process was that led me to that choice, and how should I analyze the problem correctly. I personally don't recommend taking detailed notes on lessons, as those processes should really be ingrained in the brain and nobody will be consulting notes on test day.

For improving LG speed, I can't say exactly how long it will take you. 7sage lessons recommend repetition for a particular game and I agree with this strategy. Repeating a game until the inferences and strategies become clear to me and solving the questions feels automatic. If a game initially takes you 30 minutes, repeating it with the optimal strategy in the video might take you 20 minutes. Another repetition in 15, and then 10 minutes and maybe even faster. Consider picking a basket of 5-10 games to repeat (on rotation so you don't start memorizing answers) until they are at this level of clarity and familiarity. The strategies and processes you identify and hone during repetition will carry over to the other games of the same type. Let's say a repetition progression for any one game will be 40+30+20+15+10+5= 120 minutes. 2 hours per game multiplied by 50 games (should be more than sufficient to cover all the different game types) would result in practice time in the order of 100 hours.

User Avatar
victorsbao682
Saturday, Jul 24 2021

Hi Ken,

The works you listed are significant and worth reading. However, in terms of relevance to your goal of improving your LSAT RC skills, I would agree with the youtuber that reading articles in the Economist (as well as many other publications) would be highly beneficial to your RC skills.

The sections of the Economist can be similar in subject matter to LSAT passages (law, politics, humanities, science, art etc) and are sometimes similar in length (400-600 words) to an LSAT RC passage. Even if you are not familiar with the subject matter of an article, it would be useful to read as practice, as we are typically not familiar with the sometimes obscure subject matter of LSAT passages either. I would recommend reading articles in the same process as you would an RC passage - identify and comprehend main points, argument structure, relevant details etc.

Articles in the Economist or other publications may not relate to you personally at this time, but do consider that LSAT RC passages are intentionally selected to be obscure and unfamiliar to most people. If the goal is to improve your RC as well as general reading ability to comprehend and digest an unfamiliar article quickly and accurately, I agree with the youtuber's recommendation!

User Avatar
victorsbao682
Wednesday, Aug 24 2022

If you think about the arguments abstract terms:

Stimulus: Most things of a category have a property. Thing has property, so probably in category.

(C) Most things of a category have a property. Thing of a category probably has that property. (does not match the stimulus)

(D) Most things of a category have a property. Thing has property, so probably in category. (answer choice is in weird word order but this matches the stimulus).

PrepTests ·
PT138.S3.Q18
User Avatar
victorsbao682
Friday, Jul 22 2022

Just reading the stimulus, I anticipated "employees will still not be able to afford" as the necessary assumption. (E) is the only choice that conforms to that idea. A, B, C, and D

While I believe the answer choice (E) is definitely the most correct out of the answer choices, I also believe that it falls short of being a truly required assumption.

The truly required assumption is that "employees will still not be able to afford housing after the move".

No significant pay raise does not exclude the possibility of an insignificant pay raise that nonetheless could be sufficient for employees to afford a home. There is another assumption within the answer choice that a pay raise that allows an employee to afford a home cannot be considered insignificant. That is another layer of assumption - is this the limit of assumption that test writers deem reasonable and acceptable?

Splitting hairs here, but I would guess that's how LSAC would reason if you challenged their question.

User Avatar
victorsbao682
Friday, Jul 22 2022

In short:

Almost certainly not screwed - almost certainly NYU doesn't average, at least arithmetically

Should not overthink and worry

Should focus on improving - that's the biggest factor under your control.

Ask for some time off if possible and make the most of it

Keep October on the table if you need it - 11/2 release is before the 11/15 deadline

But might be competitive for the regular decision pool anyway

Will probably get other excellent offers at great schools too

Will probably have a fine PD career no matter what

To elaborate, based on information gathered from every admissions podcast I heard and article I read in the last year or so:

Based on current available information, the possibility that NYU currently arithmetically averages of multiple LSAT scores is not supported. Here's an article from a likely credible source (Powerscore and Spivey) on the question of LSAT averaging (written 2017):

https://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/do-law-schools-average-lsat-scores-or-use-the-high-score/

Whatever reference to NYU's averaging that the Powerscore article referenced in 2017, there is no indication of it now.

The current applicant NYU application FAQ: https://www.law.nyu.edu/jdadmissions/applicants/jdapplicationfaq

Sure, requiring the submission of all LSAT scores could be consistent with score averaging, but if they did indeed average, would they not state it on their own informational materials? And the receptivity to omit an aberrant score suggests quite the contrary to any score averaging.

More strongly supported is that admissions makes inferences and preferences based on the pattern of multiple scores - as evidenced by this interview with a former NYU Law admissions officer for example:

https://classic.7sage.com/podcast-episode-54-columbia-law-and-nyu-law-with-jill-steier/

Her response to the hypothetical suggests that admissions officers do indeed make inferences and preferences based on the pattern of an applicant's scores, but no indication is given that any scores are arithmetically averaged. Sure, patterns can raise a red flag if they are abnormal or suspicious, but a pattern of improvement over time can hardly be regarded as abnormal or suspicious. For your situation, hardly a red flag, at most a question mark to be addressed with a brief addendum (as stated in NYU's own FAQ).

In addition, operating in the current system of top score only reporting, it would likely be mathematically impossible for NYU to maintain its competitive medians and ranking if it were to throw out stacks of lower-arithmetic average multiple-take applications, especially in recent years as LSAC data indicates a rising proportion of repeat-takers. Just some personal speculation here based on my non-scientific interpretation of that data.

As the October score release is on 11/2/2022, an entire 13 days before NYU's ED deadline of 11/15/2022, might be prudent to register for October and keep it as a backup. Perhaps you might risk your registration fee if you decide you don't need it before the test and after the refund deadline, but it would provide a helpful buffer to some psychological pressure. And seems like your stats are going to be at or above their medians anyway, so you will likely be competitive even if you are in the regular decision pool. So there is more time if you need it.

And if you are having trouble finding time to study, perhaps look into reducing your other commitments if possible. Maybe your colleagues at the PD office will sympathize, even be encouraging regarding your efforts toward your own legal career. Why let a temporary current commitment hold back your larger long term goals?

Perhaps all this is moot. If you do score around what you are able to practice testing now, you'll very likely receive multiple excellent offers from various fine institutions, any one of which could lead to a fine career as a PD.

Good luck, take care of yourself, and all the best,

Sincerely,

Somebody in a similar situation and on a similar schedule to drastically outperform an unsatisfactory score from early LSAT days, learned to stop worrying about it, focused on trying to get better at the test and writing more convincing essays.

User Avatar
victorsbao682
Friday, Jan 21 2022

Good morning,

I found this setup best to use a chart, similar to the PT88.S1 flowers game. This is copied straight out of my games notebook so let me know if you have any questions.

GHJKLM - each 1+

rst

1. Jr + r r

2. K st

3. K -> /H

4. /H -> J

5. M > J

key inferences:

Jr and Kst,

Kst forces Hr,

Jr+ s or t,

M>J forces Mrst,

all r's accounted for and HKM complete, only variables are remaining s/t for GJL

Master game board:

(X indicates must be empty, underscore indicates open space)

: r - s - t

G: X _ _ 1 or 2

H: r X X

J: r _ _ 1 not both

K: X s t

L: X _ _ 1 or 2

M: r s t

User Avatar
victorsbao682
Tuesday, Jul 19 2022

Simulating at least some full PTs will be necessary to be comfortable and maximize performance on official test day. But it is not necessary to do PTs only in full simulation. Breaking a PT down into multiple sections can be justified and beneficial if full simulation proves an obstacle to getting sufficient practice and the act of breaking down PTs allows one to perform and benefit from more practice than otherwise.

User Avatar
victorsbao682
Monday, Jul 18 2022

Recently revisited this so here is one strategy to answer your question: Even though it's a sequence, not fundamentally different to what you might do for an in/out grouping game.

7 spots, 4 items. Every week will be a visit (no blanks). Each destination will be in (none out). From this infer some will repeat.

Given must be in: GJMMT.

5/7 items are established, 2 spots are indeterminate. M is fixed at 2, so the only three possible repeaters are G, J, and T.

From there you can infer the limited set of combinations for the final two spots, subject to the other rules may further limit the possible combinations and permutations (just going to leave it here to answer your original question).

Broad applicable strategy: Determine elements that must be in, count remaining indeterminate spots and evaluate combinations of the possible remaining repeating pieces.

User Avatar
victorsbao682
Tuesday, Jan 18 2022

You should take all 4 sections. It is still important to develop mental endurance and be acclimated to the rhythm of the real test. And it could be detrimental to discard 25% of your practice materials as well.

The 4 section score can be easily converted anyway and if you really want to mitigate any risk of false confidence, input the worse score of your 2 LR sections.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat-flex-score-converter/

User Avatar
victorsbao682
Thursday, Aug 18 2022

I’d suggest for weakening questions (as well as all LR argument questions), read actively with the intention and goal of inferring assumptions in the argument. To weaken, think of something that would make the assumption false. To strengthen, think of something that would make the assumption true. To identity a flaw in an argument, typically there is an unsupported assumption. With this framework, you can take any passage and convert it to any other LR question type too.

User Avatar
victorsbao682
Thursday, Nov 18 2021

plumbing institute:

P: for several years use experimental curriculum

P: 1/3 graduates pass certification - below national average

C: curriculum lowered quality of instruction

assumption needed for conclusion to make sense: passage rate was higher than 1/3 before experimental curriculum.

the flaw is that no support is offered for this assumption. conclusion that instruction quality has lowered based only on premise that institute passage rate is below national average.

A. phenomenon [low passage] as effect of observed change [experimental curriculum] in the face of evidence [not stated nor implied] indicating that it may be the cause of change.

Answer is tempting because it could be an alternate explanation that the experimental curriculum was introduced to improve the low passage rate, but argument could still stand even if the explanation were true - curriculum could still have lowered the quality of instruction. Besides, evidence that it is the cause of the change is neither stated nor implied. The explanation does not attack the assumption on which the argument rests.

B. lack of evidence that quality has increased [true per stimulus] as though it were conclusive evidence that it has decreased - lack of evidence of improvement not stated (maybe implied)

This is a tempting answer but does not accurately describe the flaw of the argument. The key of the flawed argument lies in its conclusion of lowered quality of instruction implied by its passage rate relative to national average rate of certification passage, rather than relative to passage rate between years at the institute.

C. concludes that [instruction] has diminished in quality from evidence that it is of below-average quality - premise stated and conclusion is accurately represented - correct answer. This is the most vulnerable point as the assumption that bridges premises and conclusion is completely unsupported.

D. not vulnerable considering it is explicitly stated that the passage rate is below the national average. even if the average is stated, would not necessarily change the argument.

E. sufficient/necessary conditions confused - not applicable to stimulus

approach:

Identify the flaw in how assumption bridges premise and conclusion and that the assumption is vulnerable (no support offered)

multiple close answers - close answers not wholly incorrect, but rather state method of reasoning incorrectly or offer extraneous explanation.

correct answer reflects strictly how the argument is flawed and introduces no other implications.

User Avatar
victorsbao682
Thursday, Nov 18 2021

Might not be necessary to diagram to this extent during an actual test as choice A is luckily closely parallel to the stimulus and the other answer choices are wildly different but here is my take:

cannot distinguish thing cause effect -> thing not irreplaceable or not necessary

In the stimulus:

Thing = chili/spice

Effect= spiciness

Choice A)

Thing = pigment

Effect= vision

The others:

B) devote majority resources -> cannot avoid war

devote more than half resource -> peace cannot persist

C) receive doctorate -> complete required classes and write dissertation

complete class and write dissertation -> receive doctorate (necessary/sufficient switch flaw)

D) live concert -> depart from original -> unique and irreplaceable

live concert -> unique and irreplaceable

E) delicious meal -> high quality ingredients

no high quality ingredients -> not delicious meal

User Avatar
victorsbao682
Friday, Jan 14 2022

FGHJK ppp, infer nn

1: _ _

2:

3: Jn

1. 1 empty max

2. n -> /p

3. F -> /G

4. apt1: _ _ max

5. Hp+_p

6. apt3: Jn

Key Inference:

n-> /p and apt3:Jn and Hp+_p restricts to 4 possible distributions of ppp nn,

FGK remain.

If 2 open spots in same apartment, F/G cannot both be in, forces K into one of the empty spots.

1: Hp _p

2: _p

3: Jn _n

FGK any remaining spot

1: _p

2: Hp _p

3: Jn _n

FGK any remaining spot

1: empty

2: Hp Kp _p

3: Jn _n

FG any remaining spot

1: _n

2: Hp Kp _p

3: Jn

FG any remaining spot

User Avatar
victorsbao682
Wednesday, Nov 09 2022

Might be a while before the official video comes out but here are my notes for working out the game set efficiently. Let me know if this helps.

F G H I Q R S V

5/8 in, 3 out, conditional chains

G -> F -> S/V

H -> F

V -> Q and R

/Q or /R -> /V

H -> /Q and /I -> /V

G and S -> /I and F and /V

key inference:

S and V both out -> /F would force both GH out, insufficient remaining

therefore at least one of S/V always in

split three scenarios:

in: S

out: V

remain: F G H I Q R

in: V Q R

out: S H

remain: F G I

in: S V Q R I

out: F G H

/I, MBF: SV triggers I in

FH in, must be in?

in: FHS

out: QIV

remain: GR, must fill in to FHSGR

QV in, could be in?

in: QVR

out: H

remain: F G I S

a. SH violate V -> /H

b. SI ok

c. SF violate S/V

d. GI violate G -> F

e. GH violate V -> /H

/Q, must be in?

in: S

out: Q V

remain: F G H I R 4/5

can I out? SFGHR ok. eliminate choices with I.

a. SV no

b. RS ok

c. RV no

d. HI, I out possible

e. GI, I out possible

no test method:

S must be in, so eliminate CDE. V must be out, so eliminate A. B remains.

User Avatar
victorsbao682
Monday, Aug 08 2022

If you believe you would get more out of your PTs if you slowed down, then you answered your own question. What would be the benefit of achieving what seems to be an arbitrary goal of completing more than half of all available PTs if you sacrifice some quality in your practice and review? If you are getting close to your test date, it could be a better use of time to selectively focus on certain recent PTs that are more representative of the current test. And in the scenario that you keep studying past September, it could be crucial to really slow down and thoroughly dissect and analyze your scarcer remaining PTs in order to maximize your potential.

User Avatar
victorsbao682
Saturday, Jan 08 2022

Hey good evening,

I also found this tricky to setup at first but there are definitely a couple key inferences that break the game open:

6 teachers K L M N O P

into 2 schools: j/s

3 languages F G R

Rule 1: no language repeats at same school

From this rule, it is key to infer that something like FFR-GGR would not be valid, nor would FFGR-GR be valid.

Therefore the languages taught at each school must be FGR-FGR.

This is key to determine the base setup:

(junior/senior school separated by column)

F: j_ s_

G: j_ s_

R: j_ s_

(each language taught once at each school, max 2 teachers per language)

Rule 2 - KL same school, infer that K and L teach different languages

Rule 3 - LM same language, infer that L and M teach at different schools

Rule 4 - Nr - LM cannot teach r, max 2 teachers per language

Rule 5 - Of - LM cannot teach f, max 2 teachers per language

It is key to infer that L and M teach g.

P is the free piece, not affected by any rules.

LM must teach g, K follows L, would be Kf or Kr. Split boards for Kf and Kr scenarios.

Of and Nr and P fall into place based on K placement.

F: O/P

G: L M

R: K N

F: K O

G: L M

R: N/P

No other given rules on junior or senior schools, so j/s could be either left column or right column, to be determined by questions.

Hope this helps!

User Avatar
victorsbao682
Monday, Nov 07 2022

This question is challenging and potentially confusing in the setup since it introduces multiple ways of grouping the study subjects:

Treatment vs control group - treatment is effective

Blind treatment vs blind control - equal severity.

The setup is important, but the point of the argument can be summarized as: If no difference in severity between blind treatment and control, then there is no real benefit (implying the observed effect is just a placebo effect because some subjects knew what they were getting a placebo). To weaken the conclusion, the answer choice must prove that there is at least some benefit to the treatment.

The argument subtly relies on the assumption that the study is properly randomized and that the distribution initial acne severity between the treatment and control groups is uniform, which is exactly what A negates, weakening the conclusion. If A is true and the acne outcomes ended up no different, then the group that started more severe indeed gained more benefit from the treatment, so the conclusion is weakened because there is at least some benefit for the severe acne sufferers. And it is the strongest weakener as it addresses directly the relationship between both treatment and control groups.

C does not make a distinction between the groups in the study and has no effect on the argument.

B, D, and E are tempting as they all do address some form of distortion in the study subjects, potentially somewhat weakening the integrity of the conclusion, they fail in that they state a potential distortion affecting one group but do not exclude the other group from the same distortion, leaving the possibility open that both groups are affected by the distortion.

Key takeaways:

Questions about scientific studies come up frequently in LR, and the test will prey on an inclination to assume without question that the study is randomized or unbiased. One should read the stimulus critically to identify any possibilities of bias.

Weakeners that suggest a distortion to one group without addressing the other group are incomplete and might not be the right answer.

User Avatar
victorsbao682
Thursday, Jan 06 2022

Good morning,

I found it useful to take a "must be true/could be false" approach to the problem and consider the specific wording and context of the answer choices to reveal why E is more supported than C.

When considering answer C, whether Sibley would agree that the goal is to reduce the number of species, recall that the author considers Sibley a "splitter", and that splitters would tend to divide populations into full species, contrary to the answer choice's stated goal to reduce the number of species.

In addition, though Sibley writes that "we must limit the number of degrees", it does not necessarily follow that Sibley would want to reduce the number of species. Rather, it can be inferred that Sibley could still want the number of species to grow, albeit not grow out of control, or even hold the number of species the same. The answer choice C could be false.

Answer E is the most strongly supported. The author supports the point that interpreting differences is arbitrary and that Sibley would not disagree, citing Sibley's writing that "species concept is slippery". This suggests that critics and Sibley would both agree that because the differences are arbitrary, there will be disagreements about species classification. No matter the extent to which DNA techniques are refined, the very act of species classification will still be arbitrary, so it must be true that there will be disagreement.

User Avatar
victorsbao682
Wednesday, Dec 01 2021

Hi,

I found this difficult and unusual at first but there is a series of key inferences in the first 3 spots between the first 4 rules that will determine the setup and unlock the game.

STVWXYZ

1234567 h/m

Rules and inferences:

X4 given

hh-X. Can infer hhm-X (hhm order determined by following rules)

T before all other h. Because 123 are hhm (order to be determined), can infer T is possibly Tm1, Th1 or Th2

W-T. Can infer W-T, W cannot be h (would violate rule 3), T cannot be 1T therefore order must be Wm1 Th2 _h3 X_4

Z-Y and S-Y. Can infer Y5 or Y6

_h6 given

From this, your setup would be:

W T _ X _ _ _

m h h _ _ h _

Remaining variables are:

Z-Y, S-Y

V is free

Q11 acceptable?

1W 2T has determined in setup. WTS violates no other rules.

Q12 must be m?

1Wm position is fixed, must be true.

Q13 V7, could be m except?

if V7, ZS before Y, Y must be 6h.

Q14 could be 6h?

recall fixed positions and free pieces. WTX fixed, SVYZ remain, any could be possible.

Q15 must be h?

infer fixed position T from setup

Q16 if Sm, MBT?

if Sm, must be S5 to conform. remain VYZ

W T _ X S _ _

m h h _ m h _

V could be 3/6/7 h/m

Y could be 6/7 h/m

Z could be 5/7 h only

Confirm action

Are you sure?