- Mon Oct 26, 2020 12:13 pm
#80379
Hi Meri,
Your proposed grouping of FG - HK - L violates the "either-or" part of the rule. An "either-or" rule means at least one of the two things stated in the "either-or" must happen in every solution to the game. So here, the "either-or" rule means that every solution to the game must have either F as a sole paralegal on his case, or G as a sole paralegal on her case. Your proposal has neither one of F or G as a sole paralegal on their case, and so it violates that construction.
The "not both" clause of the rule simply means that you can't have a scenario where both F is the sole paralegal, and G is the sole paralegal. So we can't have a generic F - G - HKL distribution. But that doesn't change the "either-or" clause, which still requires at least one of the two of F or G to be a sole paralegal in every solution.
I hope this helps!
Your proposed grouping of FG - HK - L violates the "either-or" part of the rule. An "either-or" rule means at least one of the two things stated in the "either-or" must happen in every solution to the game. So here, the "either-or" rule means that every solution to the game must have either F as a sole paralegal on his case, or G as a sole paralegal on her case. Your proposal has neither one of F or G as a sole paralegal on their case, and so it violates that construction.
The "not both" clause of the rule simply means that you can't have a scenario where both F is the sole paralegal, and G is the sole paralegal. So we can't have a generic F - G - HKL distribution. But that doesn't change the "either-or" clause, which still requires at least one of the two of F or G to be a sole paralegal in every solution.
I hope this helps!
Jeremy Press
LSAT Instructor and law school admissions consultant
Follow me on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/JeremyLSAT
LSAT Instructor and law school admissions consultant
Follow me on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/JeremyLSAT