Setup and Rule Diagrams

[SkylarkV]

I'm with Angelsfan. Why, in common usage, should "at least 2 weeks must separate the sale" be interpreted as used in this game? If I said to somebody on the first day of sale of A, "We won't be having a sale on B for at least 2 weeks, so come back then," that person would potentially return in 2 weeks, not 3! Question could've easily been made unambiguous simply by saying something like, "Each sale runs a full week," and "At least two weeks must separate the end of the sale on headphones and the beginning of the sale on speakers."

[Ryan Twomey]

Hey SklarkV,

I recommend memorizing that separated in the logic games section on the LSAT means the same thing as between on the LSAT. So we have to have at least two weeks in between H and S. Aka we need two slots in between H and S. H_ _...S or S_ _ ... H is how I wrote it.

If S is fifth, there is no room for H because H would have to go first or second, which is not possible. H cannot go first because T/R must go there, and H cannot go second because L has to come before H.

The first time I saw separated on the test, I was confused as well, so I do have sympathy, but sometimes it's easier to just write it on a flashcard and memorize it for next time instead of trying to make an argument as to why the test makers are wrong.

I hope this helps and I wish you all of the luck in your studies.

Best,
Ryan

[Azimat]

Hello, is there any way someone can complete the diagram and set up for this game? My timing was really off during this game and I'm curious where I went wrong.

Thank you,

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Here you go Azimat.

There's not a ton in the set up here. And apologies for the rough nature of the drawing.

[andy12]

Hi there,

Question about diagramming: "If televisions are not on sale during the first week, refrigerators must be on sale then."

I understand notT1 -> R1 and R1 -> notT1 per the above diagram.

1. Is that the same in this context as notT1 <-> R1 ?

Because of the T -> 1/7 rule, I diagrammed it as: T7 -> R1. Because of this, I overlooked the correct answer to question 6.

2. Do you have recommendations for clarifying writing the rule "perfectly" or in it's (longer) undisturbed form, balanced with trying to make concise inferences?

Thanks!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Andy,

It's important to diagram the rules exactly as they are given and keep the rules and inferences that you make based on the rules separate. This is especially true for Rule Substitution questions (such as Question 6) because often the correct answer to a rule substitution is simply an inference that you've already made by linking the rules. In other words, the correct answer produces the exact same setup/diagram as you originally had just by skipping right to the inference that the two rules produce.

In this game, the fourth rule should be diagrammed:

not T 1 -> R 1

and the contrapositive is

(not R 1 -> T 1)

In plain English, this is known as the "either/or" rule and basically says "either R is first or T is first." (Note that "either/or" on the LSAT means at least one. In this game, R and T can't both be first because the game tells us that only one product type will be on sale each week.)

In Rachel's diagram above, she wrote "R1 -> not T1." While this is certainly true, it is not technically part of this rule (and definitely not the contrapositive of this rule.) That statement is an inference that would be true of any variable in any spot in the diagram because each spot can only have one product. For example, I could write, "If M is week 3, then S (or any other variable) is not in week 3."

While you were absolutely correct in linking rules 3 and 4 to come up with the inference that if T7 -> R1, it's important to realize that this is an inference made from linking these 2 rules and not a rule itself. For example, if a question suspends one of these two rules, that inference is no longer valid.