Q19

[hbn37273]

I think the answer choice relate to line32-35, but I choose a), don't understand why a) is wrong, the passage say the memory only exceptional on the field relate to chess games, a) says some other games, seems reasonable to infer they don't have exceptional memory.

thanks a lot!

[fmuirhea]

You have the line reference in the passage correct, but you've misunderstood what "only" is modifying. It says "chess players have exceptional memory for configurations of chess pieces," not that they "have exceptional memory only for configurations of chess pieces." Rather than limiting their memory to the domain of chess, the term "only" modifies the configurations themselves: chess players remember only "those configurations [that] are typical of chess games." This means that if you arranged the pieces on the board in a way that was not likely to actually come about in a game (i.e., atypically), they would not recall the configuration. This aligns with the credited response, (D).

(A) might be true in the real world, but it is not supported by the passage. You said it's "reasonable to infer" (A), but this question does not ask for an inference - it specifically asks for something that is stated in the passage. Compare this question stem to the question stem for #16 in this same section: "The passage says..." vs. "Which one of the following can most reasonably be inferred from the passage?" For both types, you should be able to find support for the credited response in the passage itself, but the former asks for something that is explicitly mentioned, while the latter asks for something that is suggested or implied.

[ohthatpatrick]

Fantastic response.

Let us know if any questions remain.

[mila_he]

Hi guys,

I kinda dont understand how you guys ruled out E? Thank you so much!

[ohthatpatrick]

If you're liking (E), I worry that one or both of two things is going on:
1. You're not going back to the passage first to find your answer to the question
2. You think that this question stem wants some tricky paraphrase out of you, rather than some boring regurgitation of details.

When RC question stems say stuff like
according to the passage
the passage refers to
the author explicitly states
the passage says
we want to simply find the line(s) of text being tested and look for the safest, most conservative restatement of what we know.

The keywords here force us to go back to the passage to find what "superior chess players do NOT have exceptional memory for".

We find it in line 32-35.
They have exceptional memory for configurations of chess pieces, but only if those configurations are typical of chess games.

This is a conditional claim, so we could import our knowledge of LR and think of this as
Exceptional memory of config ---> configuration typical
contrapositive:
~typical configuration ---> ~exceptional memory

Cool. So we have a really tight pre-phrase. We need "a configuration that's not typical of chess games".

(A) This seems close "typical of games other than chess" = "not typical of chess". Keep it.

(B) No keywords match.

(C) Nothing about atypical configurations.

(D) arrangements = configurations, but this doesn't mention ATYPICAL. Keep it, but seems fishy.

(E) No keywords match.

Compare (A) to (D) back to line 34-35:
(A) actually says "sequence of moves", not "configurations"
(D) gives us "configurations" but not atypical

How do we choose?

Well the passage said that superior chess players won't have exceptional memory if they're looking at a configuration of pieces that's not typical. So an "atypical" configuration of pieces IS a kind of arrangement of chess pieces.

(A) is talking about a series of moves, which that line simply didn't discuss. They're just trying to bait us in with the word match of "typical".

Meanwhile, the correct answer (in typical fashion, pun intended) finds an equivalent synonym to make itself less obvious (arrangements = configurations).

Sometimes on LSAT, we're so paranoid about hard questions that we make the easy ones into something harder than what they need to be. So wear a smile when you see "according to the psg" / "psg refers" / "psg says": These questions are our friends. Go find the answer in the passage and then pick the answer that is the closest restatement.

[g1oriaaa]

If you had a problem with this question I think you should also take a look at Practice Test # 7 (February 1993). It's kind of common for the LSAT writers to have answer choices such as this one in the RC passages. It's the type of answer choice that is pretty vague and therefore could be inferred. For instance in this passage some chess piece configurations is referring to those that the author had said are not typical of chess games. "Some" which is the equivalent to at "least one" or in this case "at least one chess piece configuration that is not standard of a chess game." It is vague but still works. Same with the one in PT 7. They say crop rotation denies pathogens a suitable host for a period of time. Then the correct answer choice to the inference question goes on to say "phytopathogens typically attack SOME plant species but find other species to be unsustainable hosts" is basically a vague round-about phrase that can actually be interpreted to say the same thing.

[haeeunjee]

How do we choose?

Well the passage said that superior chess players won't have exceptional memory if they're looking at a configuration of pieces that's not typical. So an "atypical" configuration of pieces IS a kind of arrangement of chess pieces.

(A) is talking about a series of moves, which that line simply didn't discuss. They're just trying to bait us in with the word match of "typical".

Meanwhile, the correct answer (in typical fashion, pun intended) finds an equivalent synonym to make itself less obvious (arrangements = configurations).

Sometimes on LSAT, we're so paranoid about hard questions that we make the easy ones into something harder than what they need to be. So wear a smile when you see "according to the psg" / "psg refers" / "psg says": These questions are our friends. Go find the answer in the passage and then pick the answer that is the closest restatement.

I would argue that as "arrangements" in (c) is similar to configurations, "sequence" in (a) can also be similar to configurations.

I think the crux of this question is that it is asking for something that has been explicitly stated or suggested in the passage, and there is nothing about other games. The only thing we know is that chess players have exceptional memory for typical configurations of chess games, while they do not have exceptional memory for atypical configurations, which is still a configuration, like Patrick said. Tricky question!