where in the answer key it says "E can never appear in slot 3 or 4 because E and D cannot be consecutive..."
Just to figure this out, I had to write out the Not Law for "E" under the scenario of D being on slot 3, 4, then 5, individually, just to see that E cannot fall on either slot 3 or 4 (as stated in the answer key). Is there a quicker way to arrive at this conclusion than going the route that I did? To manually write out each scenario??
For some reason it took a really long time for me to understand that E can't go in either slot 3 or 4... I didn't see how you could say that from the get-go until I did this manual exercise.
Linear Setup Practice Drill #2
5 posts • Page 1 of 1
Thanks for the question! There is actually an easier way, and it's a tool you will need use on every LSAT, so it's good to get reinforcement on it now
The key to making this inference is Linkage. when you analyze rules, one of the first steps in making inferences is to look for common variables, and then link them together. In our drill here, we have the following two rules, with italics added:
The Akita must be shown exactly two places before the Doberman.
That common connection through the Doberman is a signal that you should consider the two rules together, and see if there is any inference that might result. In this case, the second rule is a split-block, and because it occupies three spaces out of five, it automatically limits where D can be placed (namely into 3, 4, or 5. Since from the first rule we then know that D and E can't be next to each other, you can mentally play around with the positioning of D and how that affects E. That process right there is critical—you have to consider that pairing and what the implications are. Once you start mentally positioning the A __D block, then it becomes easier to see what happens to E.
That's a start—please let me know if it helps. Thanks!
PowerScore Test Preparation
Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/DaveKilloran
My LSAT Articles: http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/author/dave-killoran
Thank you Dave!
Yes your explanation makes a lot of sense. I think I need more practice so that I get accustomed to it. I linked the rules, that helps tremendously. But then, I still have to play around with the positioning of the D to fall on spots 3, 4 and 5, in order to see that E cannot fall in spots 3 or 4. I think with practice I'll get better and most importantly, faster!
Can you recommend other questions where this inference-via-linkage can be practiced more?
Many, if not most, basic linear and advanced linear games include opportunities to make inferences via linkage, and every sequencing game comprises essentially a multifaceted linkage inference.
Here are several such games:
However, you may wish to save games such as these for actual diagnostic tests. You will find more than enough opportunities to make such inferences on your basic linear, advanced linear, and sequencing homework both in the Logic Games Bible and Logic Games Bible Workbook.
Remember to make your inferences dynamically and observe connections as you work through your diagramming. When you encounter variables that appear in more than one rule, that's usually a dead giveaway, in much the same way that encountering the same variable in multiple conditionals can often provide the opportunity to make a conditional inference.
Please follow up with further questions. I hope this helps!
Thanks so much, a quick report that I'm acing sequencing in mock trials now... yoohoo!! (finally... and i need to speed up more... )
5 posts • Page 1 of 1