June 2018 LSAT Section 4 Question 7

Which one of the following is a possible matching of architects with projects, in order from the first completed to t...

BibianaM on August 17, 2023

The explanation video and the OR rule

the explanation video mentioned that a common mistake is that assuming the F can only be with Z or W. I am a little confused...so does that mean that for example the first rule (F w/ X OR L w/ Z) that this type of rule (the "or" rule) doesn't imply the F can ONLY be with X or Z.

Replies

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Emil-Kunkin on August 17, 2023

Hi, Z can only be with F for L, because we are told that those are the only two things that can go with it. I think what the video was trying to get across was that unless we are told specifically that the only things that can go somewhere are X and y, then other options could still go there. Since we don't have any rule telling us that F can only go in X or z, I don't think that's what that means.

I'm not sure if I was clear here, and if not please please let me know and I can try to reframe it.

BibianaM on August 18, 2023

I'm sorry I made a typo I meant Z can only be with F or L. So to restate my question correctly, does the first rule in the question mean that Z CANNOT be with anything BUT F or L. So the "Or Rule" in general would limit whatever variables it includes? Like this rule would majorly limit the variable. Does that make sense..?

Emil-Kunkin on August 20, 2023

Ah thank you, makes perfect sense now. So the first rule does indeed mean that the only things that could be with Z are f and l. When we set up and either or situation like this we have only those two options. So here z must be with f or l, and if z isn't with f, z is with l, or visa versa. This rule does indeed majorly limit Z.