Which one of the following, if substituted for the constraint that the two restaurants must be separated by at least ...

iHAVE33FLAWSandAcommonLSATflawAINTone on May 28 at 07:07PM

Scratch that, I figured it out. I guess a better question(s) would be this.

For rule sub, any overarching advice for methodology?

And would scenarios play a role here? I started to do it and then I just foresaw too many options, and wasn't comfortable potentially wasting that much time. If scenarios make sense here for someone who likes to do the work upfront, what would those scenarios be?

Emil-Kunkin on May 29 at 10:14PM

I would say I have two ways to approach rule sub questions. First, I would look for ways to restate the rule using other rules. That is, if we are replacing a rule that if A then B, and we have another rule that tells us that if C then A, we would know that if C then B would recreate the initial rule.

This is pretty common that the correct answer will be a deduction we made off the initial rule.

As a fallback, the right answer will be something that does not allow anything that was previously banned, and does not ban anything that was previously allowed.

Emil-Kunkin on May 29 at 10:15PM

By that I mean that it must not let the old rule be violated in a newly valid scenario, and it can't be violated by anything that the old rule would have allowed.