LSAT Prep-Test 54 Logic Game 2

steve.r.letts

Can the writers of the LSAT really be able to deceive you the way they do on this question? One of the rules states that "At most one CD received more stars than Quasi did". And there can only be 1, 2, 3, or 4 stars. Thus, Q cannot receive 4 stars. Yet in the asnwer choice Q does receive 4 stars.

This does't make any sense and is obviously contradictory with their rules. I even watched the video on this, and there have been numeorus complaints about this quesion. Can the writers really contradict their own rules like that?

steve.r.letts

I sound very frustrated, and I apologize! I didn't mean to come off that way. However, this really concerns me as I am writing soon and anxious already. If I got a question like this, it could have really messed up this entire section for me.

DumbHollywoodActor

"At most" implies that it could be that none could be more than Q, which would allow Q to have 4 stars. Welcome to LSAT life, where English is our mortal enemy.

c.janson35

Exactly as @DumbHollywoodActor said, pay careful attention to the English as LSAC is very precise. In this case, the at most rule means that Q has to be in either 3 or 4 because Q in 1 or 2 would violate the rule. I would split up the game board accordingly.

Pacifico

Also, there is at least one game, if not more, where they do write contradictory rules. It just means that a certain set of worlds aren't possible, not that LSAC messed up. It's meant to throw you off your game so you have to guard against getting that deer in the headlights look and instead press on.

c.janson35

@Pacifico I wouldn't say there are contradictory rules, but that in some worlds the application of the rules contradict each other. At least I haven't seen any. If 2 rules contradict each other from the outset, it seems the game would be impossible.

Jonathan Wang

I think Pacifico is referring to a certain hospital placement game, not outright contradictory rules like "A is in 3, A can't be in 3". You two are talking about the same thing, just with different semantics.

To the OP: I don't mean to be harsh, but the level of confidence you had in your ultimately incorrect interpretation of the rule in question ("obviously" contradictory, "doesn't make any sense") suggests to me that your first instinct for your misunderstandings is to blame the test. Aside from fixing the English comprehension issues at hand, it may also behoove you to adjust your outlook on the mistakes you make. Easy rule of thumb to keep in mind: if you think the LSAT screwed something up, you're wrong.

Pacifico

@c.janson35, @"Jonathan Wang" is correct, that was the game I was referring to. It was basically an in/out game that chains up to show that if X is in, then X must be out. In context it simply means that X is always out, but chaining it the first time blew my mind a little bit because I thought they had made an error because I had never seen them introduce a wrinkle like that before.

DumbHollywoodActor

@Pacifico was it the Souderton and Randsborough In/out game?

Pacifico

That sounds about right.