- Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:47 am
#92160
Since you are talking about coming up with hypotheticals, I assume you are talking about this concept in a Logic Games scenario and not a Logical Reasoning question, and it sounds like you are taking the approach of testing answer choices one by one. If so, that's usually the last resort you should take! There is almost always a better, more efficient way to approach the question.
If the question is "global," meaning that it gives you no new information and is based entirely on your main diagram and the inferences you made at the start of the game, then your first line of attack for a Could Be True question should be to simply compare the answers to your diagram and eliminate the ones that are clearly impossible. That's where your "not laws" will frequently come into play, and why they are so valuable. If you have a not law under the 2nd group for H, and one of the answer choices says "H is in Group 2," then you know, based on that not law, that answer cannot be true, and you can just cross it out without testing anything.
If your setup was based on templates, and you have an answer choice that is not possible in any of those templates, cross that out too. Maybe you have three templates, and in two of them H is in Group 1 and in the third it is in Group 3. If you have done your setup correctly then you would know that H cannot be in Group 2. That's another way to eliminate wrong answers rather than test them.
And if you have templates, you can also sometimes select the correct answer because you have at least one template in which it is a clear possibility. Maybe in one template you see that W is 4th, and there is an answer that says W is 4th. Bingo - that obviously could be true and you don't need to test it, because you already DID test it at the beginning!
And if the question is "local," meaning it gives you a new restriction that applies just to that question, then your first step, before looking at any answer choices, is to diagram out that local scenario and then see what else must be true within that diagram. Apply all the rules and build out everything you know must be true, and then use that diagram to sort through the answers. Again, don't test those answers by drawing them out, just compare them to your diagram and eliminate those that conflict with what you drew.
Finally, if you have to test an answer, don't test it by coming up with a random hypothetical solution. Instead, test that answer by attempting to come up with one solution in which that answer occurs. If you can do it, then the answer could be true; if you cannot, then the answer cannot be true. So if the answer you are testing says "J and K are both selected," then you should draw a scenario that starts with J and K both being selected, and then apply all the rules to see what else must occur. What do they knock out of the group? What do they force in? What conditional rules do they trigger? Once you have drawn out the things that must occur, then either you have a viable solution and this is the correct answer, or you do not have one and this answer cannot be true and should be crossed out. It's not just any hypothetical that you should be testing; it's exactly what must occur in this case.
Don't test answer choices until you have gone through those other steps! Use your main diagram or your local diagram, focusing on what you know must be true first. What's left - the unknown elements of that diagram - will usually be the source of the correct answer.
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at
https://twitter.com/LSATadam