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 at 12:11AM

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 at 02:10PM

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 at 08:27PM

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 at 02:42PM

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.