• Contact Us
  • Student Login
  • My Cart

LSAT and Law School Admissions Blog

You are here: Home / Logic Games / Unusual Rules in LSAT Logic Games: It’s the New Norm

February 26, 2016

Unusual Rules in LSAT Logic Games: It’s the New Norm

Unusual Rules in LSAT Logic Games Pt1

Confusing Rules

If you’ve taken any test from the last couple of years, you may have stumbled upon strangely-worded or confusing rules. For example:

Train A can arrive earlier than train B if and only if train B arrives earlier than train C.

Either car A arrives immediately before car B, or it arrives immediately after car C, but not both.

The Q meal is served at some time after either the M meal or the N meal, but not after both.

It’s worth noting that none of these rules are ambiguous, i.e. none of it is open to multiple interpretations. That would compromise the logical validity and reliability of the exam, which is not something test-makers ever want to do. Indeed, each of these rules entails a concrete and definitive outcome. It’s just that this outcome is not as easy to deduce as it is with more straightforward rules.

Cleaning Up the Clutter

Let’s analyze the first rule:

Train A can arrive earlier than train B if and only if train B arrives earlier than train C.

This is clearly a conditional statement, which many test-takers would diagram as follows:

1 AB-BC Rules

By the contrapositive, train C can arrive earlier than train B if and only if train B can arrive earlier than train A (assuming none of the trains can arrive simultaneously):

2 CB-BA Rules

These two diagrams show that you possess the conditional reasoning skills necessary to ace the test. Unfortunately, this is not enough to ace it: ironically, knowledge of conditional reasoning is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition to do well. What you need to do is analyze each part of this bi-conditional relationship more closely:

Let’s take trains A and B. Assuming neither of them can arrive simultaneously, there are only two possible sequences for A and B:

Our conditional rule specifies exactly what each of these two sequences mean: in the first one, train B must arrive before train C; in the second one, the opposite is true. Thus, we can create two separate, exhaustive, and mutually exclusive sequencing rules, one of which will always govern the order in which the three trains arrive:

Simplification Achieved

This is a much simpler representation of the original rule: it’s easier to understand, and even easier to apply to the questions in the game. It also shows you an important inference that you may not have seen otherwise: the B train can never arrive first or last.

When faced with trickier rules, the goal is to simplify them without deviating from their original meaning. Avoid parroting (or restating) the rule written on the page: try to analyze what it means, visually as well as spatially. And if it still seems convoluted, remember: there is usually a simpler way to draw it out.

More Unusual Rules

  • Unusual Rules in LSAT Logic Games Part II
FacebookTweetPinEmail

Posted by PowerScore Test Prep / Conditional Reasoning, Logic Games, LSAT Prep / Logic Games, LSAT Prep Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Attend a PowerScore Webinar!

Popular Posts

  • Podcast Episode 168: The 2025 US News Law School Rankings
  • Podcast Episode 167: April 2025 LSAT Recap
  • Podcast Episode 166: LSAT Faceoff: Dave and Jon Debate Five Common Test Concerns
  • Podcast Episode 165: February 2025 LSAT Recap
  • Podcast Episode 164: State of the LSAT Union: 2024 Recap and 2025 Preview

Categories

  • Pinterest
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
  • Twitter
Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!