Diagram

[ohthatpatrick]

Attached is a .pdf file of a one-sheet explanation to this game. Please let us know if you have any thoughts, questions, suggestions about it.

[KendallW586]

I am confused about the sum/non-sum rules. When answering some of the questions it asks what could be true, but I found for more than one that they could either be sum or non-sum. Can anyone help explain this rule constraint a bit better?

Thanks in advance.

[smiller]

On the LSAT, the phrase "could be," refers to what is possible. When a question asks for what "could be true," we're looking for an answer that describes what is possible. The four incorrect answers will describe something that is not possible.

In question 13, for example, if N is second and is not summarized, we can infer that some of the other books will definitely be summarized. We can infer that others definitely won't. It's not possible for O to be summarized, so choice (C) is incorrect.

The only inference that we can make about F in question 13 is that it's first. Nothing forces F to be summarized or prevents it from being summarized. In other words, it could be summarized. Choice (A) describes something that is possible—something that could be true—so (A) is correct.

If that doesn't help, can you provide more info about the questions and answer choices that are giving you trouble?

[KendallW586]

Thank you for your response.

I am struggling with questions 13-15, but I think I understand now. The conditional + ordering rules threw me off.

For 13, how did you infer that O could not be summarized based upon the rule that N is second and not summarized?

I realize my biggest mistake. I ignored the N -- T ---> T -- O rule and ended up putting T first.

Whoops! But, hey, at least I caught and corrected myself.

[smiller]

If N is not summarized then T is summarized (second rule). Placing N in spot 2 forces T into spot 3 and O into spot 4. The first rule prevents consecutive books from being summarized, so O cannot be summarized.