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

- 30.1K All Categories
- 25.5K LSAT
- 15.8K General
- 26 Sage Advice
- 4.6K Logical Reasoning
- 1.2K Reading Comprehension
- 1.6K Logic Games
- 65 Podcasts
- 186 Webinars
- 5 Scholarships
- 191 Test Center Reviews
- 1.7K Study Groups
- 98 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.2K Specific LSAT Dates
- 14 June 2023 LSAT
- 6 April 2023 LSAT
- 9 February 2023 LSAT
- 25 January 2023 LSAT
- 4.6K Not LSAT
- 3.8K Law School Admissions
- 8 Law School Explained
- 11 Forum Rules
- 514 Technical Problems
- 268 Off-topic

steve-10
Alum Member

A condition stated is "Within each segment, reports are ordered by length, from longest to shortest." For purposes of my question I'd like to emphasize that this condition, like all LG rules, **is an absolute rule that must be followed**.

We are given no information about the length relation of T to either of W or I. Despite this:

The correct answer to Q1, the typical "acceptable configuration" question, implies T — W (where "—" is the usual notation indicating relative order). If this is a way of providing more information, i.e., another rule, it is unique in my limited experience.

The correct answers to Q5 and Q6 imply T — I.

How can T — W or T — I be**required assumptions** to answer correctly without our having any information that would support them?

The explanation for this game does not address my question.

We are given no information about the length relation of T to either of W or I. Despite this:

The correct answer to Q1, the typical "acceptable configuration" question, implies T — W (where "—" is the usual notation indicating relative order). If this is a way of providing more information, i.e., another rule, it is unique in my limited experience.

The correct answers to Q5 and Q6 imply T — I.

How can T — W or T — I be

The explanation for this game does not address my question.

## Comments

A violates that N is the longest

C violates that S is the shortest

D violates I...W(I is longer than W)

E violates that each segment needs a Local Interest report(The second segment only has General Interest)

With these four eliminated, B HAS to be correct.

Edit: I decided this wasn't a complete enough explanation since it didn't cover 5 and 6.

Looking at Question 5, we can see once again that the answer itself is correct without this assumption. If I were the last report of the first segment, W could not be in the first segment since I must be longer than W. Similarly, I must be longer than S since S is ALWAYS the shortest. Since I is the last(shortest) of the first segment, the second segment must be W and S.

So now lets look at the first segment. We have I as last, and two blank spaces left. Well, since N is ALWAYS the longest, It must be N-T-I. As you can see, we arrive at this answer not because of the assumption that T-I, it is simply a product of the existing restrictions.

Now, question 6. The only reason T - I is the case here is because the game dictated this.

So can we have I-T? Yes. Consider:

1: NWS

2: IT

Unless I am wrong, this is a valid answer. As you can see, T - I is not a must be true.

impliesT—W. So we don't have to assume that to derive the correct answer by elimination. But we do have to assume it to believe the correctness of the answer, i.e., that this answer complies with the rules. After all, if W — T,which we have no reason to believe is incorrect, then all of the answer choices for Q1 are wrong. Is that not a logical flaw in the game? I'm not saying it prevents correct answers, but it could cause unwarranted uncertainty and thus delay.The order relations that are specified all include the word "always." That lends support to your point.

a list. Answer choice (B) is a valid arrangement of the pieces. It would also be valid to have Traffic before Weather during the second segment. @Tinyosi1 is entirely correct on this.could beis a possibility.T -- W does not violate, or indirectly force the violation of, any rules. That is an important inference, but it is important to differentiate that it is only an inference of possibility.