#3 - Global, Cannot Be True

[Dave Killoran]

Complete Question Explanation
(The complete setup for this game can be found here: https://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewtopic.php?t=12575)

The correct answer choice is (C)

Answer choice (C) cannot be true because the fourth rule establishes that there is at least one unsliced oatmeal loaf. Thus, answer choice (C) is correct.

[mcdonom4]

Hello!

I'm a bit confused here as to why (B) isn't correct? I chose (B) as the answer because even if you use the maximum number of rye loaves, 3, then there are still two empty spots that can only be unsliced (because the answer choice says that "the ONLY sliced loaves are rye loaves"), which means that there has to be at least one rye that is unsliced. So it cannot be true.

U U U S S S
O _ _ R R R

For the record, I understand why (C) is correct and cannot be true, but it seems that both these answers work? I'm sure I'm missing something, so any help would be great!

[Robert Carroll]

mcdonom,

When answer choice (B) says that the only sliced loaves are rye loaves, it's basically saying "if sliced then rye":

sliced rye

That's different from saying "all rye loaves are sliced":

rye sliced

So when you use the three rye loaves up in your hypothetical, there's no need for all of them to be sliced.

We could instead create this hypothetical:

UUUUUS
OOOORR

Robert Carroll

[mcdonom4]

Hi Robert!

Thank you, that definitely makes more sense! I guess maybe I got confused because I thought in conditional reasoning "only" introduces what's necessary, so it would be rye loaf sliced loaf?

[Robert Carroll]

mcdonom,

See my discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?f=645&p=33959#p33959

Adapting it to this situation, note that rephrasing the answer as "Only rye are sliced" doesn't change its meaning, and makes it more obvious to what the "only" applies.

Robert Carroll

[mcdonom4]

That totally makes more sense! Conditional reasoning is definitely my achilles heel, so your explanation helps a bunch. Thank you so much!

[lsat2022]

Hello,

I understand why C is the correct ans (from rule 4) but doesn't the language of (A) i.e. "loaves" violate rule 5? As per rule 4, there needs be at least 1 unsliced oatmeal LOAF but if there are 2 or more unsliced LOAVES, then at least 1 has to be rye.
Is this just an LSAT language trap or am I misinterpreting the rules?

Thank you!

[katehos]

Hi lsat2022, thank you for your question!

Simply put, the language of (A) does not violate rule 5. Even though at first glance (A) seems to be referring to more than one loaf, the use of the plural 'loaves' here is to refer to an unknown quantity, which could be one or more. It's sort of like asking someone if they have any siblings. You don't say "do you have any sibling?" The singular sounds odd! You don't know how many (if any) siblings they have at all! Instead, you ask if they have any siblings. But alas, I am no grammar expert, so I'm not quite sure what the technical grammar rule here is called. Luckily, however, I do know the LSAT! So, let's try discussing this in more common terms.

If we look at (A), we can actually rephrase it in terms of conditional logic to better understand why the word 'loaves' does not pose an issue here. We know that the phrase "the only" can effectively be treated as a sufficient indicator (check out this great post for more information on different ways to understand the phrase "the only" viewtopic.php?t=7614). With this in mind, we can diagram (A) to mean:

Unsliced Loaves Oatmeal Loaves
Oatmeal Loaves Unsliced Loaves

We can interpret these conditionals to mean "any (or all) unsliced loaves are oatmeal loaves." Well, if any unsliced loaves are oatmeal, do we have to have more than one unsliced loaf? No, that doesn't make sense! We could have one unsliced oatmeal loaf, and that's perfectly in line with the phrasing of the answer choice as well as the rest of the rules (we could have 1 unsliced oatmeal loaf and 5 sliced loaves of the other type(s)).

That said, if (A) actually restricted us to 2 or more unsliced loaves, you'd be correct regarding how such a rule would conflict with rule 5!

I hope this helps!
Kate