Q11

[haeaznboiyoung]

I'm having a really hard time tackling these types of questions... I have my two conditional diagrams set up already and they dont' seem to help with eliminating the answers. Can someone help clarify how to approach these questions? Do you literally just have to work out every scenario?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

For question 11 you do not have to work through every scenario. You might have to work through each answer choice to test them. But working through every scenario is unnecessary.

So we need an answer choice that will require N and J to be older than T, but not incorporate other relationships not implied originally. Sounds tough... But they can't make it impossible or they wouldn't put it on the test.

Go through the answer choices one by one and test the connections rather than test the scenarios. As soon as you see an inappropriate connection (ie: one that wasn't there originally) or the absence of a desired relationship, toss out the answer choice.

(A) doesn't come close. It establishes a relationship that we do not want between H and T, get rid of it. There might be other reasons why it's wrong, but that's enough to move on.
(B) is closer but still not right. The relationship between N and T is good and the relationship between F and T was important, but it doesn't help us establish that J is older than T, so it's no good.
(C) is also close in that if either of J or N is older than T then both are older than T - and we want both N and J older than T. But that still leaves open the possibility that both are more recent than T. So no good.
(D) guarantees that N and J are older than T - check. It excepts P and H, good, and the only other character is F, which we already knew was older than T. This answer choice has all of the desired relationships and nothing more.
(E) establishes an undesired relationship between P and N and so is not the correct answer.

Does that help? You'd definitely need to reference your diagram to see it through. Let me know if you still need help with this one.

[yooni85]

But (d) would not be the same as saying T is older than H and P right? It could be true that H or P is older than T.

[noah]

But (d) would not be the same as saying T is older than H and P right? It could be true that H or P is older than T.

I believe you're reading (D) incorrectly. It says that everyone other than H and P must be older than T. It doesn't say that H and P have to be younger. It's just saying they don't have to be older - they might be, they might not be.

That clear it up?

[indyyork]

I was reading it exactly as you are describing the error...Thanks for clarifying the question Noah!

[goriano]

I was reading it exactly as you are describing the error...Thanks for clarifying the question Noah!

For these types of questions, would another strategy be looking at each answer choice and eliminating ones that contradict your hypotheticals?

[timmydoeslsat]

I was reading it exactly as you are describing the error...Thanks for clarifying the question Noah!

For these types of questions, would another strategy be looking at each answer choice and eliminating ones that contradict your hypotheticals?

Absolutely! If your hypotheticals contradict a potential new rule, then that rule is not an adequate substitution that affects variables in the same manner and only the same manner as the original rule.