Split Blocks

[LSATprepper]

Semantical question:

Why is "F marches exactly three groups behind G" supposed to be G _ _ F?

If I were to tell you that I am marching 3 people behind the first, I think the first instinct would be to count 3 people in between me and the first. If I tell you that I am marching 1 person behind the first, I think the instinct would be to count one person between me and the first. If, however, I tell you that I am marching 1 position behind the first, I think it would make sense to be the 2nd person in the line-up.

I understand that saying I am going to finish 3 days after today means there are two days in between, but for some reason "F marches exactly three groups behind G" does not sound like it is that scenario.

Thanks guys, because while I do understand the general theory behind G _ _ F, I just can't shut the idea that semantically this is extremely awkward and just wrong in everyday speak.

[Dave Killoran]

Semantical question:

Why is "F marches exactly three groups behind G" supposed to be G _ _ F?

If I were to tell you that I am marching 3 people behind the first, I think the first instinct would be to count 3 people in between me and the first. If I tell you that I am marching 1 person behind the first, I think the instinct would be to count one person between me and the first. If, however, I tell you that I am marching 1 position behind the first, I think it would make sense to be the 2nd person in the line-up.

I understand that saying I am going to finish 3 days after today means there are two days in between, but for some reason "F marches exactly three groups behind G" does not sound like it is that scenario.

Thanks guys, because while I do understand the general theory behind G _ _ F, I just can't shut the idea that semantically this is extremely awkward and just wrong in everyday speak.

Hi LSATPrepper,

Thanks for the question! In a sense, you've answered your own question when you said "If, however, I tell you that I am marching 1 position behind the first, I think it would make sense to be the 2nd person in the line-up." That's the interpretation they use throughout rules like this, which means we get the following:

• 1 Person behind: G F
  
  2 people behind G __ F
  
  3 people behind: G __ __ F

You has prefaced that by referencing the idea that "I think the first instinct would be to count 3 people in between me and the first." This is an important point, because as discussed in the book, they make a big deal about the difference between "behind" and "in between." So there will be times when you need to reference that exact difference!

When you talk about awkward language on the LSAT, this won't be the last time you probably have that thought. There are numerous examples of phrasing on this test that doesn't sound quite right or feels off (such as when they drop commas in places where there should be a comma). The key is to realize they are actually very precise in what they say, and often the awkwardness is their attempt to make it as clear as possible (and the instance above is one where I'd argue they are exactly correct). The good news is that this is why we prep using released exams—it gives us the ability to learn those quirks so that when they come up on test day you can speed right through them

Thanks!

[LSATprepper]

Thanks, Dave.

As a follow-up question, if the LSAT states Abby is 3 people behind Dave, then it would be D _ _ A?

Just making sure that for people the same rule applies, because other words like seats, groups, etc. imply position and could easily be mapped as above.

Just to harp on the point one last time, if I were to tell you that I am marching three people behind John, I think it actually specifies that there are three people behind John before I march.

Sorry if this is too granular and I am overthinking, I just wanted to confirm the rule stands in case the LSAT specifies people.

Thanks for all the help.

[Dave Killoran]

As a follow-up question, if the LSAT states Abby is 3 people behind Dave, then it would be D _ _ A?

That is correct! If you put three in between them, then Abby would be the 4th person, not the 3rd. This is how you know it's two spaces in between. Again, the exact usage of "before/behind" vs something like "in between" is critical here.

Just making sure that for people the same rule applies, because other words like seats, groups, etc. imply position and could easily be mapped as above.

I'm not sure I understand the point you are referencing here, but if I interpret you correctly as possibly suggesting there are differences, I disagree (and if I'm wrong, my apologies). So, to clarify, each of these is identical:

• Abby is 3 people behind Dave: D _ _ A
  Abby is 3 seats behind Dave: D _ _ A
  Abby is 3 positions behind Dave: D _ _ A

What occurs isn't changed by altering the name of what is being counted.

Just to harp on the point one last time, if I were to tell you that I am marching three people behind John, I think it actually specifies that there are three people behind John before I march.

I'd urge you to go back into your original post and see the contradiction you have in believing this. I tried to point it out with the "I am marching 1 position behind the first" vs "I am marching 3 positions behind the first" examples you roughly cited in your original post. I agree with LSAC's interpretation here, and it seems to me you change your interpretation based on whether it's 1 behind or 2 or more behind. The above diagramming is something you will have simply accept is what they mean (because of course they are always right, and can't be argued with, lol)

Thanks!

[LSATprepper]

Thanks, Dave!

You're right, there is no arguing with them . I understand your explanation!

About the contradiction, I was just trying to reference that there seemed to be a difference in semantics.


1) If I say Abby is THE PERSON behind Dave, it is STILL D A. I totally get that.

2) BUT when I say Abby is *A* person behind Dave, I DO NOT interpret that as Abby is THE person behind Dave, but that there is ONE PERSON behind Dave that Abby is behind. Which, as you have told me, is NOT how it is in the exams. I guess I find that there is a not-meaningless semantic difference between our every day usage of the words "A", "One," and "The."

3) Following that logic,if Abby is a person behind Dave is D_A, that would be synonymous to Abby is one person behind Dave.

4) Therefore, Abby is 3 people behind Dave would be D _ _ _ A.

The issue is my thinking that there is a difference between saying "I am one person behind Dave" and "I am THE person behind Dave" because I just don't see myself using them interchangeably.

Edited: out a part that didn't make sense in this discussion.

I think, ultimately, there is no arguing with the text (although, I never had any intention to argue) and I'm glad this issue came up before the exams. I'll contact you in the future if I have more questions!

Thanks for your patience! This question has been resolved!