Advanced Linear Setup Practice Drill #4

[E3to]

I am wondering about the rule that states "Librarian F works an earlier shift than librarian G." My interpretation is that this refers to the time frame of the shift (F works Morning, G works afternoon) and not date (F works anytime Monday, G works anytime Tuesday). This appears to be confirmed in the explanation on p. 140.

If this is the case, does this produce an inference that F can only work Mornings and G can only work afternoons (resulting in Side Not Laws)? Also, could F work Tuesday morning and G work Monday afternoon?

Thanks for the clarification,
Jeff

[Nikki Siclunov]

Thanks for your question!

I think you may have misunderstood the F > G rule. There is no indication that the rule refers only to the time frame of the shift within a given day (i.e. that F always works mornings, and G always works afternoons). The rule simply states that F works an earlier shift than G: it is entirely possible that both work mornings (or afternoons), as long as F works on a day before the day on which G works. Alternatively, they can work on the same day, in which case F would have to work in the morning, and G - in the afternoon.

I hope this clears things up. And no, you will not have the Side Not-Law inferences you mentioned in your post, for the above-mentioned reason.

[E3to]

Thanks, one last question.

Does this rule also allow a situation in which F works Tuesday morning, while G works Monday afternoon (i.e. earlier in terms of time frame, but later in terms of day of the week)?

[Dave Killoran]

Hey Jeff,

No, that scenario wouldn't be allowed under the wording of the rule. If they wanted to get that across, they'd have to change the language of the rule to specify that option.

Thanks!

[jupiterlaw]

Hi,

How would you determine for this practice drill that F working an earlier shift than G is referring to the dates and not morning vs afternoon?

I feel like this is something that could be easily argued. Should we note that for any LSAT question that refers to times and dates as individual variable sets that if a rule states X appears earlier than Y we should assume the reference is to the day of the week over time of day always? If so why? I don't see how this can be clearly assumed based on the language.

I'm failing to miss an indication that LSAT makers could argue that it is clear that this rule refers to F working a shift earlier [in the week] than G, rather than F working a shift earlier [in the day] than G?

[jupiterlaw]

I noticed also that there could be another Not Law that is missing from the answer key.

Wouldn't D E be a Not Law under the Friday Morning shift since they must work morning shifts on consecutive calendar days, so neither could work on Friday since no one works Thursday?

[Dave Killoran]

Hi,

How would you determine for this practice drill that F working an earlier shift than G is referring to the dates and not morning vs afternoon?

I feel like this is something that could be easily argued. Should we note that for any LSAT question that refers to times and dates as individual variable sets that if a rule states X appears earlier than Y we should assume the reference is to the day of the week over time of day always? If so why? I don't see how this can be clearly assumed based on the language.

I'm failing to miss an indication that LSAT makers could argue that it is clear that this rule refers to F working a shift earlier [in the week] than G, rather than F working a shift earlier [in the day] than G?

It doesn't rule out morning/afternoon times on the same day. From the explanation in the book: "The second rule, “Librarian F works an earlier shift than librarian G,” can be very tricky. This rule, which is diagrammed as F --- G, does not automatically create Not Laws for G on Monday and for F on Friday. This is because “earlier” allows for F to work the morning shift and G to work the afternoon shift of the same day." [Bolding added for emphasis].

However, the scenario posited above--"Does this rule also allow a situation in which F works Tuesday morning, while G works Monday afternoon"--will not work because in no world would someone say that Tuesday morning is "earlier" than Monday afternoon." LSAC would say that doesn't conform to common sense and is thus wrong.

Thanks!

[Dave Killoran]

I noticed also that there could be another Not Law that is missing from the answer key.

Wouldn't D E be a Not Law under the Friday Morning shift since they must work morning shifts on consecutive calendar days, so neither could work on Friday since no one works Thursday?

As discussed in the book explanation, we know D/E has to be Mon-Tue or Tue-Wed. Once we knew that, there was no need to write out the Not Laws--we already captured that info with the D/E option on Tuesday.

The Not Laws in the afternoon appear because it's part of the rule, and because the D/R option is in the morning row. That said, there's nothing wrong at all with knocking D and E out from Friday AM on the diagram

Thanks!