#8 - Local, Must Be True

[Dave Killoran]

Complete Question Explanation
(The complete setup for this game can be found here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=6788)

The correct answer choice is (C)

Because T cannot attend a session on the third day, for employees to attend two sessions on the third day then M and S must separately attend the hiring and regulations sessions:

D02_Game_#2_#8_diagram 1.png

This inference allows us to prove that answer choice (C) is correct. For example, if M attends the regulations session on day three and S attends the hiring session on day three, then M cannot attend another regulation session and S cannot attend another hiring session. So, if M and S were to attend a session together, they would have to do so at an investing session. But we know from the second rule that M and S cannot attend an investing session. Thus, we can infer that M and S do not attend any session together.

This discussion allows us to make an inference that will be useful later in the game, on question #10: when M and S attend different session topics, i.e. one attends a hiring session and one attends a regulations session (regardless of the day attended), they cannot attend a session together at any point in the game.

[gmsanch3]

Hello, can someone please explain where in the rules it says that an employee has to attend different sessions? For example they cannot attend M on day one and then M again on day 2. I didn’t catch this and because of it, I was very confused and only got 3 correct. The first rule really threw me off.

[KelseyWoods]

Hi gmsanch3!

The first rule states: "Each conference participant attends exactly two sessions, which are on different topics and on different days."

The participants are M, S, T.
The session topics are H, I, R.

That first rule is telling us that each of our conference participants (M/S/T) have to attend exactly two sessions on two different topics (H/I/R) and two different days.

So just to clarify, M is a participant, not a session topic. M attends two different sessions on two different topics on two different days, but no one attends M.

That means that if M attends H on day 1, she would have to attend R on either day 2 or day 3 (since the 2nd rule says she does not attend I).

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[cgleeson]

Hi,
I did pretty good with set up BUT this question threw me for a loop.
Capital Employees must attend 2 session of different days, with that being said M & S can not both attend sessions together on Day #3.
If, they are to attend Day #3 sessions, they have to be separate because of the rule of different days? Is that correct?
Thank you so much in advance!

Chris

[katehos]

Hi Chris!

Yes, it is in part because of the rule regarding different topics on different days! If two sessions are attended on the third day by one or more employees, we know that two session must be attended by two individuals: Maria and Suki. This is because Tate cannot attend the third day and participants have to attend different topics on different days. If we tried to have Maria and Suki attend a session together on the third day, we would be unable to have two sessions attended by one or more employees on the third day. Since we now know that Maria and Suki each individually attend a session on regulations or hiring on the third day, we can infer that they will never be able to attend a session together throughout the rest of the conference.

This inference stems from the fact that Maria and Suki cannot attend a session on investing AND the fact that they have to attend different topics on different days. Once Maria and Suki attend R/H separately on one day, the only way we could attempt to have them attend a session together on any other day would be to have them attend an I session (not possible) or to have them join each other and repeat either R/H (also not possible). So, (C) is correct!

I hope this helps
Kate

[cgleeson]

Yes, Kate this is a tremendous help. Thank you.
Chris

Hi Chris!

Yes, it is in part because of the rule regarding different topics on different days! If two sessions are attended on the third day by one or more employees, we know that two session must be attended by two individuals: Maria and Suki. This is because Tate cannot attend the third day and participants have to attend different topics on different days. If we tried to have Maria and Suki attend a session together on the third day, we would be unable to have two sessions attended by one or more employees on the third day. Since we now know that Maria and Suki each individually attend a session on regulations or hiring on the third day, we can infer that they will never be able to attend a session together throughout the rest of the conference.

This inference stems from the fact that Maria and Suki cannot attend a session on investing AND the fact that they have to attend different topics on different days. Once Maria and Suki attend R/H separately on one day, the only way we could attempt to have them attend a session together on any other day would be to have them attend an I session (not possible) or to have them join each other and repeat either R/H (also not possible). So, (C) is correct!

I hope this helps
Kate

[lsatstudent2]

Hi,

Could someone explain why a and b are wrong?

[Hanin Abu Amara]

Hi!

This is a must be true question. So whatever answer choice you select has to be 100% true. Look at the description of the game above. The only thing we know with certainty is that M or S must be on Day 3 Session H and M or S must be on Day 3 Session R.

Answer choice A isn't a must be true. We don't have to have two sessions on the first day to be full. We can have M on day 3 session H and no one else.

Answer choice B can never be true because only T can attend the session on I because M and S can't due to the rule. T can't attend two session on I because each person can only attend the same session once.

Hope that helps!