#4 - Local, Cannot Be True

[Dave Killoran]

Complete Question Explanation
(The complete setup for this game can be found here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=15627)

The correct answer choice is (D)

If N’s salary is the same as that of one other partner, then L’s salary cannot possibly be less than H’s salary. If L’s salary were in fact less than H’s salary, then the following single chain sequence would result:

Feb92_Game_#1_#4_diagram 1.png

Under these circumstances, however, N’s salary would be the lowest and could not be the same as that of any other partner. Thus, if N’s salary is the same as that of one other partner, then it must be false that L’s salary is less than H’s salary. It follows that answer choice (D) is correct.

[Nadia0702]

Hi,
I'd like to ask for some help with Game #3 (February 1992) on the Lesson 1 HW, specifically question 4. I was able to diagram the rules correctly and answer the other questions correctly but this question stumped me. I understand the answer, but I am at a loss of how I would have arrived at that answer systematically on my own. Are there tips for how to attack this kind of question and/or set it up?

Many thanks.

[Ron Gore]

Hi, nadia!

Just to be sure that we're on the same page, the diagram would be:

I > F > M > G > J > H
K> ---------------------------
L > N

The dashed line between the top row of sequenced variables and the bottom reflects that we have absolutely no idea what the relationship is between any of the variables on top of the line and any of those below it.

What we know for sure is that K has the greatest salary and either N or H has the least salary. We also know the relationship between L and N, namely L > N. Separately, we know the relationship between the variables on top of the line, namely I > F > M > G> J > H.

The local restriction in Question 4 adds the restriction that N has the same salary as some other partner, meaning N and another variable tie. The change this rule effects is that if N ties another variable, it can't be dead last. We already know it can't be first, because there is a definitive set of rules making K first.

So, how would you make N last? By having Lopez tie Hae or have a salary less than Hae. Either way works, because it would force N to the very end of the sequence, where it would be be all alone. If Lopez were to come after Hae, the diagram would look like this:

K > I > F > M > G > J > H > L > N

Since N is dead last in this scenario, it can't be the same as that of one other partner in the firm. So, it must be false (cannot be true) that Lopez's salary is less than Hae's, and answer (D) is correct.

Question 3 is logically quite similar to Question 4, but simply deals with the front of the long sequencing chain rather than the back. It may be helpful for you to consider those questions together to gain greater context for Question 4, and to consider why it is you missed 4 but got 3 correct.

Please let me know if I can be of further help.

Ron

[Nadia0702]

Hi Ron,
Thanks so much for this thorough explanation, it was very helpful. I can see the key inference I missed that made it very difficult for me to answer the problem. Thanks again!

[Ron Gore]

You're welcome!

[amagari]

How do you know which partner Nassar is linked with? It just says with 1 other partner but there's many other partners.

I understand the explanations of why each answer is right or wrong after it's explained to me but how did you decide which partner to pair N with to then check is the relationship in the answer was correct. Like how could I see this on my own?

[Adam Tyson]

We don't know which partner has the same salary as N, amagari! That's what allows for so many possibilities in this question. N still has to make less than L, who still has to make less than K, but other than K and L, N could be paired up with anyone else!

What makes answer D correct is not that we know who N is paired with, but that if D were the case then N couldn't be paired up with anyone, because he would make less than everyone else.

Answer A could be true, because in that case N could be paired with anyone other than K or L

Answer B could be true because N could be paired with anyone other than K or L

Answer C could be true because N could be paired with M, G, J, or H

Answer E could be true because N could be paired with J or H

Answer D cannot be true (and is therefore correct) because with L making less than H, and N making less than L, there is nobody that N could be paired with. Everyone makes more than he does!

Rather than focusing on what must happen here, find the thing that cannot happen. Everything else is possible!

[Shedrickc]

I think I had the same problem with question number 4. I read the question as if you could change the salary of N, but the question requires you to simply compare based on existing conditions L-N. I considered L and N having the same salary and since the original setup indicated that the only salary that had to be higher was K I didn't see an issue with L AND N having the lowest equivalent salaries. This question made me sad. this problem should've taken five minutes to complete, but it could take twice as long questioning your setup before you realized the only other way to logically read the question.
I guess that's why they're called LOGIC games .

[marie216]

I understand how/why answer D is correct, but I'm wondering then what is the best course of action when presented with a question like this.

When I initially looked at the question I was thinking in terms of "If N's salary is the same as one of the others -> could L be less than H, etc." so I was trying to see what could/couldn't happen when making N the same as other partners. It seems now a better framework is "could N's salary be the same given that 'L is less than H'., etc" In which case I should just try each answer choice assuming it is correct to then see if N could be the same as anyone else in that scenario? Is that the way to go about this?

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Marie!

You could approach this question in either way. Typically with a cannot be true question like this, I would approach it just as you did, where you satisfy the local restriction and then ask yourself if each answer choice could be true. The specific nature of this question and the answer choices might make the other way around seem more effective. But ultimately, I think the approaches are about equally effective, but I'd give the edge to the first approach since that's generally more effective across the board. I think the real trick with this question is figuring out what you know once you fulfill that local restriction. Knowing that N's salary must be the same as someone else's salary doesn't tell us much else definitively but it does limit our options and it's helpful to look at the extremes: at the earliest, N could have the same salary as I and at the latest N could have the same salary as H. Once we have those extremes figured out, it's a little easier to go through these answer choices to determine what can/cannot be true.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey