If none of the SoftCorp employees attends Handling People, then which one of the following must be true?
SorooshKoshaon February 15, 2020
Hypothetical
As you can see, this game tripped me out a but :P.
In the hypothetical drawn in the video, the talks after the vacant H were filled up with SR and QT's, but can't these also be written as TR and QS? I get how the first ones have to have these patterns because of the restrictions that spot F and G have, but I don't understand why spots I and L still have to be SR and QT. Hopefully this question makes sense, and thank you again in advance.
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
If I am understanding your question correctly, you are asking why we cannot have the following assignment of attendees to talks:
I: TR L: QS
The short answer is that this is also a valid scenario, my guess is that the video only demonstrates one of several possible hypotheticals. In fact, for this particular question, almost any combination of Q R S T is possible for I & L as long as Q and R do not attend the same talk.
We have 5 talks total, and each employee - Q R S T - attends exactly 2 talks R Q X Q/R R/Q S S/T X __ __ F G H I L
For this question, no one attends H, which means every employee attends exactly two talks.
Since Q cannot attend F, and S &T cannot attend the same talk together, R must be one of the attendees, and S must attend R's first talk.
Same for G, since R cannot attend G and S&T cannot attend the same talk, one of the attendees must definitely be Q and the other one S or T.
Q and R each still have one talk to attend and they cannot attend the same talk together because it would result in ST combination for the remaining talk, which is against the rules. It leaves us with two possible scenarios:
(1) If Q &S attend the second talk, then we can determine the complete assignment of all the attendees:
R Q X Q R S S X T T
(2) If Q & T attend the second talk, then any combination of Q R S T are all free variables for the last two talks as long as Q and R attend separate talks:
R Q X Q/R R/Q S T X S/T T/S
Let me know if this answers your question.
SorooshKoshaon March 11, 2020
Thanks a lot!
Julia!on July 15, 2020
How does the first scenario you point out not violate the fourth rule that Q & T need to be with each other on their first meeting? Is it only one way, where Q needs to be with T the first time but T doesn't need to be with Q the first time. If so, I find the language on that rule misleading
shunheon July 23, 2020
Hi @Lillian,
Thanks for the question! So let’s take a careful look at the fourth rule. Does it say that “Q and T need to be with each other on their first meeting”? No. We’re told that Q attends the first talk that T attends. That means that the first time T appears, Q appears. But it doesn’t mean that the first time Q appears, T appears! So something like
R Q X Q R?S S X T T
is perfectly fine, because we can see that the first time T appears is in the fourth slot, and Q appears then. The rule is definitely written in a way that’s supposed to confuse, but you’ll have to watch out for phrasings like that on the LSAT.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
