#12 - In the Centerville Botanical Gardens, all tulip trees are older than any maples.

[Dave Killoran]

Complete Question Explanation

Must Be True. The correct answer choice is (E).

The first and third sentences create what looks like a sequence from a logic game:


T > M > D


This sequence of age is pretty easy for most people to understand, and thus, as you might suspect, the issues with this problem aren't in those parts of the stimulus. Unsurprisingly, it's the second sentence that provides the key to solving the problem because it's the most confusing part of the author's statements.

The second sentence is tough to diagram given the graphical limitations of the forum, but typically I add that sentence on to the sequence above. And what do we know from the second sentence? That "most" S are older than M, but that "some" S are younger than M. Because I used sequencing symbolization to represent the main relationship, I used sequence arrows for showing how S fits into the T > M > D relationship (those arrows both point down and then one goes left and the other goes right).

Here's somewhat how it would appear (please excuse the graphical limitations of the forum):

• ..T > M > D
  .||
  Most S <-- --> Some S

This confusion over how S works means that the correct answer in this Must Be True problem will almost assuredly revolve around S, and thus you should seek and attack any answer containing S (which is every answer but (A), which I'd mostly ignore).

The answers themselves are a bit confusing because the "old as the oldest" and "old as the youngest" language takes some thought to work out mentally. And they don't do anyone any favors by burying the correct answer at the end.

Answer choice (A): Every dogwood is younger than every tulip, so this answer is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): This is possible, but not certain. We know some sycamores are younger than some maples, but we can't be certain those same sycamores are also as young as the oldest dogwoods.

Answer choice (C): This answer is saying that there are for sure some sycamores that are younger than the oldest dogwoods. Let's examine that claim.

We know that some sycamores are younger than some maples. But, when we look at that specific group of sycamores, do we know where they stand in relation to the dogwoods? No. Those sycamores that are younger than the maples could still be older than all the dogwoods. So, this is answer is possibly true but not certainly true.

Answer choice (D): We know that most sycamores are older than any maple. But, when we look at that specific group of sycamores, do we know where they stand in relation to the tulips? No, and so anything is possible there. Thus, this is answer is possibly true but not certainly true.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. In analyzing (E), consider what we know about S: some S are younger than M, and every M is younger then every S. Thus, we know that some S (the ones younger than M) have to be younger than some T. That is what (E) is saying, and thus (E) is correct.

[mford]

My question relates to #12 of section 2 of the June 1994 LSAT (prep test 11). How does the formal logic diagram of this look. It's strange because I simultaneously want to put a greater than or lesser than symbol in the diagram at the same time that I want to use formal logic.

[Dave Killoran]

It's not strange at all--that's exactly how I diagram that question

When you have a relative positioning element, the > sign is what we use to show that. Sure, it's almost always used in Logic Games, but the sign of a good test taker is to adapt the tools they have to the situation at hand.

So, the main relationship in this problem is T > M > D, which is probably how you wanted to show it. Even if you didn't choose to represent it in that fashion, you probably still understood that relationship because it is pretty clear.

The relationship with S is more complicated (and also somewhat difficult to show in a post). Because I used sequencing symbolization to represent the main relationship, and the relationship of S to M is is in that same, I used sequence arrows for showing how S fits into the T > M > D relationship (those arrows both point down and then one goes left and the other goes right).

Here's somewhat how it would appear (please excuse the limitations of the forum):

..T > M > D
.||
Most S <-- --> Some S

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[mford]

Yes. Thank you!

[paulinabalk]

Here's somewhat how it would appear (please excuse the limitations of the forum):

..T > M > D
.||
Most S <-- --> Some S
Law of Attraction personality development The Law of Attraction Laws of Attraction

I get pretty much what you meant. I understand the forum limitation.

I am just trying to do few changes and get back here and show my output in few hours.

Thanks
Paulina B.

[paulinabalk]

My question relates to #12 of section 2 of the June 1994 LSAT (prep test 11). How does the formal logic diagram of this look. It's strange because I simultaneously want to put a greater than or lesser than symbol in the diagram at the same time that I want to use formal logic.
Life Quotes

Hey Mford,

Just to check with you where you able to understand the formal logic diagram of #12 of section 2 of the June 1994 LSAT (prep test 11)?

I am trying to understand the same but looks like i am missing something obvious.

Dave's reply is of some help though.

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Paulina,

Mford took the LSAT last year, so we don't see him on the forum anymore. He did note in his earlier message that he understood the problem.

Can you tell me more about where you are running into a problem with this question? The Sycamores are the real uncertainty in this question, because the relationship between the other three types is clear.

I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks!

[kattykat]

I encountered this question in the test and got totally confused on how to solve it.
I thought it was a formal logic questions so I drew a formal logic arrow sequence (with the 'all' and 'most' arrows) like you explain it in the log.reasoning bible but still could not come close to the answer.
Could you please help me solve this question?

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Katty,

The problem with this tough question is that it isn't solely formal logic. While the sentence sentence has those elements, that comes after the first sentence creates a time sequence that is then expanded in the third sentence. This "time" element changes the nature of the problem

The first and third sentences create what looks like a sequence from a logic game:

T > M > D

This sequence of age is pretty easy for most people to understand, and thus, as you might suspect, it's the second sentence that provides the key to solving the problem.

The second sentence is tough for me to diagram given the graphical limitations of the forum, but typically I add that sentence on to the sequence above. And what do we know from the second sentence? That most S are older than M, but that S S are younger than M. This confusion over S means that the correct answer in this Must Be True problem will almost assuredly revolve around S, and thus you should seek and attack any answer containing S (which is every answer but (A), which I'd mostly ignore).

The four contending answers themselves are a bit confusing because the "old as the oldest" and "old as the youngest" language takes some thought to work out mentally. And they don't do anyone any favors by burying the correct answer at the end. In analyzing (E), consider what we know about S: some S are younger than M, and every M is younger then every S. Thus, we know that some S (the ones younger than M) have to be younger than some T. That is what (E) is saying, and thus (E) is correct.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[kattykat]

Thank you very much.
It does help after reading your explanation.
But to be honest... I seriously doubt I'll be able to answer such a question correctly if it comes up in the test. I still can't wrap my head around the language of the answers.... not as old as the oldest... not as old as the youngest... :~(