- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 904
- Joined: Apr 11, 2011
- Thu Jul 13, 2017 7:20 pm
#37265
I addressed question #14 in the setup discussion, so if you've read that you know already the two positions where T causes a problem, and hopefully understand why it does so.
If you haven't read that post I encourage you to do so, but to ensure that everyone reading this gets the gist, let me repost what I originally wrote about the T inference and question 14:
"It just so happens, in fact, that there IS another nice inference in the form of a variable (T) restriction, but it would be rather remarkable for you to have noticed it up front. Fortunately, and is very often the case when it comes to obscure but universal truths, a question eventually reveals it to you: question 14 asks you to list all of the places T could go, meaning that's a variable to look more closely at to see if you can find an issue. Would you have known to suspect T of causing problems in your setup? No way! But now we should be suspicious.
And sure enough, what you find is that if T is in 3 or 4, it forces S into the other spot (4 or 3), and that creates two pieces of open space—spots 1 and 2, and spots 5 and 6—thereby creating two blocks from the remaining variables: the WZ block from the second rule which now goes in either 1-2 or 5-6, and an RV/VR block in the other open two-spot space. Of course R and V in a block breaks the rule that they can't touch, so there's your T-issue: T cannot be in 3 or 4!
Put another way, what would force R and V into a block and thus cause problems? Well we already have a WZ block, so if S and T are ALSO a block in the very middle then our six variables must be in three pairs: WZ (always), S and T, and R and V (bad). So we can never allow S and T to form a center block themselves, meaning T cannot next be next to S by going in 3 or 4.
Great inference, even belatedly
"
So using this question as a giant clue to investigate T further is a powerful way to ensure you waste no time in your setup and still make inferences if/when they're available. I strongly encourage you to worry less about having a perfectly complete setup before moving to the questions, and instead recognize when your inference making speed begins to lack at the outset and move to the questions with an open mind: more inferences may or may not exist, but if they do you can rely on the questions and answers to point you in the proper direction.
If you haven't read that post I encourage you to do so, but to ensure that everyone reading this gets the gist, let me repost what I originally wrote about the T inference and question 14:
"It just so happens, in fact, that there IS another nice inference in the form of a variable (T) restriction, but it would be rather remarkable for you to have noticed it up front. Fortunately, and is very often the case when it comes to obscure but universal truths, a question eventually reveals it to you: question 14 asks you to list all of the places T could go, meaning that's a variable to look more closely at to see if you can find an issue. Would you have known to suspect T of causing problems in your setup? No way! But now we should be suspicious.
And sure enough, what you find is that if T is in 3 or 4, it forces S into the other spot (4 or 3), and that creates two pieces of open space—spots 1 and 2, and spots 5 and 6—thereby creating two blocks from the remaining variables: the WZ block from the second rule which now goes in either 1-2 or 5-6, and an RV/VR block in the other open two-spot space. Of course R and V in a block breaks the rule that they can't touch, so there's your T-issue: T cannot be in 3 or 4!
Put another way, what would force R and V into a block and thus cause problems? Well we already have a WZ block, so if S and T are ALSO a block in the very middle then our six variables must be in three pairs: WZ (always), S and T, and R and V (bad). So we can never allow S and T to form a center block themselves, meaning T cannot next be next to S by going in 3 or 4.
Great inference, even belatedly
"So using this question as a giant clue to investigate T further is a powerful way to ensure you waste no time in your setup and still make inferences if/when they're available. I strongly encourage you to worry less about having a perfectly complete setup before moving to the questions, and instead recognize when your inference making speed begins to lack at the outset and move to the questions with an open mind: more inferences may or may not exist, but if they do you can rely on the questions and answers to point you in the proper direction.
Jon Denning
PowerScore Test Preparation
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/jonmdenning
My LSAT Articles: http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/author/jon-denning
PowerScore Test Preparation
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/jonmdenning
My LSAT Articles: http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/author/jon-denning
