LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

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

 DlarehAtsok
  • Posts: 50
  • Joined: Nov 18, 2015
|
#23257
The following drill in Bible Workout, "Six waiters- ... S and T are both assigned to the same table". The way the book sets the diagram (T cannot serve Table A) implies that T must serve only to one table. While the sentence can lead you to this way of thinking I am not sure why it does. What if there was an additional rule, e.g. "S and T are both assigned to the same table, and T is assigned to exactly two tables?"
 Nikki Siclunov
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1364
  • Joined: Aug 02, 2011
|
#23284
Hi DlarehAtsok,

Thanks for your question. Let me see if I understand what you're saying: You believe that T can be assigned to table A, contrary to what we infer. This, according to you, is because T can be assigned to wait on more than one of the tables given the first rule in the game, so even if S cannot be assigned to table A, T can be - as long as S and T are both assigned together on another table in accordance with the last rule.

Your conclusion is based on a mistaken reading of the last rule. The rule states, "S and T are both assigned to the same table." That does not mean that they are assigned on at least one table as each other. The rule amounts to an absolute mandate to assign S and T to the same table as each other, removing any possibility that S can be assigned to a table without T (or vice versa). So, if S and T are always assigned to the same table as each other, and S cannot be assigned to table A, it follows that T cannot be assigned to table A either.

Let me know if this clears things up!

Thanks.

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

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