Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

When to implement Sufficient/Necessary conditions into logic game rules.

HailMaryLSATHailMaryLSAT Live Member
in Logic Games 24 karma

Hello everyone,

I've been tackling LG for some time now, and it seems that practice is paying off. However, in/out LG games still seem to tank my score when I am doing PTs. Therefore, I've been trying to target in/out games specifically, showing me what I may not be fundamentally understanding.

My main problem with in/out is S/N rules, mainly, when do conditional relationships trigger. I will attach two links to help explain my issue.

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-93-section-4-game-3/ (PT 93 S4 G3)

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-61-section-3-game-1/ (PT61 S3 G1)

For example, in PT 93, JY explains that the first rule of the game is based on a conditional relationship. Though the presence of H or G (or both) being in means F is also in, it is suggested that F can be in by itself, meaning one (or both) of H and G can be out. Okay, that makes sense. That is the contrapositive of the rule. From now on, when faced with an in/out game, I will look at the relationship with even more skepticism.

However, this same skepticism created even more doubt when I would drill with other in/out games. In PT 61, I tried applying the same rules of conditional relationship to Q1. Normally, this question would have been easy, but since I was trying to gauge the relationship between rule #3, it came down to choosing either A or C. I picked C, despite knowing A would have been my usual answer. Of course, that was the only question I got wrong, because I didn't know how to apply the conditional relationship.

So far my intuition is telling me that such a conditional relationship similar to PT 93 is only when there is an "if"->"then" clause. I hope someone could let me know if that is the appropriate method of thinking when approaching conditional relationship, and if there are other methods to better clarify?

Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • AlexLSAT.AlexLSAT. Alum Member
    edited August 2023 802 karma

    I think you are focusing too much on the conditional relationships and not enough on the inferences that come with in/out games. A common inference with in/out games is that when one side is filled, the rest of the pieces have to flow into the other side (because they have no where else to go.) Question 3 is a clear cut example of this.

    We know we have 2 driver spots total, and we have two passengers that need a certain driver in their group. L takes one of the two driver spots from us. This means that F HAS to be the driver for the other group because we have two passengers that still need their driver and only one more driver spot, and F is the only possible shared driver between the two of them. The last piece not accounted for is K (which could go in either spot) and that is why A is the correct answer for 3.

    In addition, the wrong answer you chose could have been avoided by realizing that since L is the driver, that means G is a passenger and can't drive. If we do not have F or G able to drive H, it doesn't obey rule 1.

Sign In or Register to comment.