LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 momgoingbacktoschool
  • Posts: 65
  • Joined: Aug 11, 2020
|
#79529
Jeremy Press wrote:Hi mom,

Here's just one option for how that's possible (although there are others, all of which involve S passing the virus to a computer, which subsequently passes the virus to another computer):
Screen Shot 2020-09-30 at 5.04.04 PM.png
I know it's possible now after I knew that it was a possible template, but how does one come up with that inference in the first place? Or another way to say it, how would I know to even TRY to do it that way in the first place?
 Jeremy Press
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 850
  • Joined: Jun 12, 2017
|
#79530
momgoingbacktoschool wrote:
Jeremy Press wrote:Hi mom,

Here's just one option for how that's possible (although there are others, all of which involve S passing the virus to a computer, which subsequently passes the virus to another computer):
Screen Shot 2020-09-30 at 5.04.04 PM.png
I know it's possible now after I knew that it was a possible template, but how does one come up with that inference in the first place? Or another way to say it, how would I know to even TRY to do it that way in the first place?
Well, I suppose I'd say it's not an inference so much as it is not making an unwarranted inference. You assumed that the first computer to transmit had to be the one transmitting to R and S. But nothing in the rules says that. Rather, the rule just says that "the computer" (whether it's the first one, the second one, etc.) that transmits to R also transmits to S. Given that the rule doesn't make that the first computer, you have to allow for the possibility that the transmission sequence could extend earlier than that computer. So, it's not a matter of making that "inference" that the sequence could extend earlier. It's a matter of not making the unwarranted inference that the computer transmitting to R and S has to be first. This is a significant challenge in every game. My advice for all games, this one included, is to avoid assuming that something can't happen until you're told explicitly through the rules that it can't.
 momgoingbacktoschool
  • Posts: 65
  • Joined: Aug 11, 2020
|
#79532
Jeremy Press wrote:
momgoingbacktoschool wrote:
Jeremy Press wrote:Hi mom,

Here's just one option for how that's possible (although there are others, all of which involve S passing the virus to a computer, which subsequently passes the virus to another computer):
Screen Shot 2020-09-30 at 5.04.04 PM.png
I know it's possible now after I knew that it was a possible template, but how does one come up with that inference in the first place? Or another way to say it, how would I know to even TRY to do it that way in the first place?
Well, I suppose I'd say it's not an inference so much as it is not making an unwarranted inference. You assumed that the first computer to transmit had to be the one transmitting to R and S. But nothing in the rules says that. Rather, the rule just says that "the computer" (whether it's the first one, the second one, etc.) that transmits to R also transmits to S. Given that the rule doesn't make that the first computer, you have to allow for the possibility that the transmission sequence could extend earlier than that computer. So, it's not a matter of making that "inference" that the sequence could extend earlier. It's a matter of not making the unwarranted inference that the computer transmitting to R and S has to be first. This is a significant challenge in every game. My advice for all games, this one included, is to avoid assuming that something can't happen until you're told explicitly through the rules that it can't.

This is helpful. Thank you!

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.