- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:00 pm
#40438
Complete Question Explanation
(The complete setup for this game can be found here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=6972)
The correct answer choice is (E)
This question tests the main inference in the game directly: neither W nor Y could have originated in Norway. If you saw the inference early on, then answer choice (E) would have been a no-brainer. If you are like most test-takers, however, this inference eluded you. If it did, here’s a logical way to proceed:
Each of the five answer choices contains a pair of artifacts that may (or may not) have originated in a particular country, and your job is to figure out which of these five assignments is impossible. Do not immediately default to a “plug-and-chug” approach, testing each answer choice in the given order A—E. This could—and, in this case, did—require the creation of five local diagrams. There is almost always a more efficient way to proceed. For instance, we know that Norway is an incredibly restricted group, with a maximum of two artifacts that could have originated there. It’s clear that answer choices (A) and (E) should be the first ones to check, because each of them forces a 3-2 distribution that is incredibly restrictive. And indeed, while answer choice (A) does not violate any rules, answer choice (E) violates the fourth rule, which states that if V is in Iceland, then Z must be in Sweden:
If you failed to make this inference initially, this is your second chance! Immediately return to your main setup and add two Not Laws—one for W, the other for Y—under the Norway group.
(The complete setup for this game can be found here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=6972)
The correct answer choice is (E)
This question tests the main inference in the game directly: neither W nor Y could have originated in Norway. If you saw the inference early on, then answer choice (E) would have been a no-brainer. If you are like most test-takers, however, this inference eluded you. If it did, here’s a logical way to proceed:
Each of the five answer choices contains a pair of artifacts that may (or may not) have originated in a particular country, and your job is to figure out which of these five assignments is impossible. Do not immediately default to a “plug-and-chug” approach, testing each answer choice in the given order A—E. This could—and, in this case, did—require the creation of five local diagrams. There is almost always a more efficient way to proceed. For instance, we know that Norway is an incredibly restricted group, with a maximum of two artifacts that could have originated there. It’s clear that answer choices (A) and (E) should be the first ones to check, because each of them forces a 3-2 distribution that is incredibly restrictive. And indeed, while answer choice (A) does not violate any rules, answer choice (E) violates the fourth rule, which states that if V is in Iceland, then Z must be in Sweden:
If you failed to make this inference initially, this is your second chance! Immediately return to your main setup and add two Not Laws—one for W, the other for Y—under the Norway group.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.