#23 - Global, Rule Substitution

[Administrator]

(The complete setup for this game can be found here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=11249)

#23 is a Rule Substitution question. What we're asked to do is find another way to create the exact situation that the "W earlier than K and L" rule creates. If a replacement rule allows more movement, or less, it's wrong. Alternative placement of variables? Wrong. Fewer Not Laws, or more? Wrong. So this is a very precise task and we need to be extremely careful as we judge the outcomes of each suggested swap.

So first think what we've learned about W before removing the rule: it must be 1 or 2, it's always ahead of both Recorded variables, and only Z can be before it. Let's find an answer that keeps all of those intact, without adding anything else. Answer choice (A) is ultimately correct because, by saying only Z can be ahead of W, you keep it in the first two, you keep the W/Z split option on 1, and you prevent either K or L from coming earlier than it. Other answers fail at least one of those in some form: (B), for instance, doesn't allow for a W and Z separation, whereas the original could have been ordered W K Z Y L T (as one working hypothetical). That difference is enough to rule it out. Similarly, (C) and (D) both allow for K (or possibly L in the case of (D)) to come before W in spot 1. (E) would allow W to go all the way down into spot 4 if it wanted to. In every instance but (A) the nature of the original is violated to some degree. Tricky idea, but common enough these days that it's worth your time to practice.

[Paola]

I had a difficult time seeing why A would be a better answer than D. What additional limits does D impose on the game that I am not being able to see? As far as I can tell, both A and D limit W to the first two spots on this linear game. Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

The problem with D, Paola, isn't that it's too restrictive, but that it isn't restrictive enough. If we adopted that rule in place of the old rule, suddenly either K or L could go first, ahead of W. Since that isn't the same as our original setup, that isn't what we're liking for. Look for the rule that puts everything back the way it was, nothing more, nothing less.

Give that diagram a try with D replacing the W rule and you'll see the difference. That's the way to test it sometimes!

[Kelly R]

Hi PS,

What about answer (A) still forces W to appear in either slot 1 or 2? I thought that W was only restricted from slots 3-6 in response to the super-rule involving W K L T, which becomes moot when the W––K/L L/K rule is removed. Thanks.

[Adam Tyson]

If we adopt the rule in answer A, Kelly, then W must either be first, with nothing before it, or Z must be first and W second. Nothing else is allowed to be before W other than Z, so K, L, T, and Y must all come after it. That's exactly the situation we were placed in with the original rules.