LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

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

User avatar
 Dave Killoran
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 4170
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2011
Complete Question Explanation
(The complete setup for this game can be found here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=15627)

The correct answer choice is (D)

If N’s salary is the same as that of one other partner, then L’s salary cannot possibly be less than H’s salary. If L’s salary were in fact less than H’s salary, then the following single chain sequence would result:
Feb92_Game_#1_#4_diagram 1.png
Feb92_Game_#1_#4_diagram 1.png (2.75 KiB) Viewed 980 times
Under these circumstances, however, N’s salary would be the lowest and could not be the same as that of any other partner. Thus, if N’s salary is the same as that of one other partner, then it must be false that L’s salary is less than H’s salary. It follows that answer choice (D) is correct.
  • Posts: 23
  • Joined: May 09, 2017
How do you know which partner Nassar is linked with? It just says with 1 other partner but there's many other partners.

I understand the explanations of why each answer is right or wrong after it's explained to me but how did you decide which partner to pair N with to then check is the relationship in the answer was correct. Like how could I see this on my own?
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 3778
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
We don't know which partner has the same salary as N, amagari! That's what allows for so many possibilities in this question. N still has to make less than L, who still has to make less than K, but other than K and L, N could be paired up with anyone else!

What makes answer D correct is not that we know who N is paired with, but that if D were the case then N couldn't be paired up with anyone, because he would make less than everyone else.

Answer A could be true, because in that case N could be paired with anyone other than K or L

Answer B could be true because N could be paired with anyone other than K or L

Answer C could be true because N could be paired with M, G, J, or H

Answer E could be true because N could be paired with J or H

Answer D cannot be true (and is therefore correct) because with L making less than H, and N making less than L, there is nobody that N could be paired with. Everyone makes more than he does!

Rather than focusing on what must happen here, find the thing that cannot happen. Everything else is possible!
  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: Sep 08, 2018
I think I had the same problem with question number 4. I read the question as if you could change the salary of N, but the question requires you to simply compare based on existing conditions L-N. I considered L and N having the same salary and since the original setup indicated that the only salary that had to be higher was K I didn't see an issue with L AND N having the lowest equivalent salaries. This question made me sad. this problem should've taken five minutes to complete, but it could take twice as long questioning your setup before you realized the only other way to logically read the question.
I guess that's why they're called LOGIC games :( .
User avatar
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: Dec 27, 2020
I understand how/why answer D is correct, but I'm wondering then what is the best course of action when presented with a question like this.

When I initially looked at the question I was thinking in terms of "If N's salary is the same as one of the others -> could L be less than H, etc." so I was trying to see what could/couldn't happen when making N the same as other partners. It seems now a better framework is "could N's salary be the same given that 'L is less than H'., etc" In which case I should just try each answer choice assuming it is correct to then see if N could be the same as anyone else in that scenario? Is that the way to go about this?
User avatar
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1066
  • Joined: Jun 26, 2013
Hi Marie!

You could approach this question in either way. Typically with a cannot be true question like this, I would approach it just as you did, where you satisfy the local restriction and then ask yourself if each answer choice could be true. The specific nature of this question and the answer choices might make the other way around seem more effective. But ultimately, I think the approaches are about equally effective, but I'd give the edge to the first approach since that's generally more effective across the board. I think the real trick with this question is figuring out what you know once you fulfill that local restriction. Knowing that N's salary must be the same as someone else's salary doesn't tell us much else definitively but it does limit our options and it's helpful to look at the extremes: at the earliest, N could have the same salary as I and at the latest N could have the same salary as H. Once we have those extremes figured out, it's a little easier to go through these answer choices to determine what can/cannot be true.

Hope this helps!


Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

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