Discussion
Which one of the following, if substituted for the constraint that the two restaurants must be separated by at least two other businesses, would have the same effect in determining the locations of the businesses?
*This question is included in June 2012 LSAT (PT66): Logic Games, question #11
| (A) | A restaurant must be in either space 3, space 4, or space 5. |
| (B) | ... |
| (C) | ... |
| (D) | ... |
| (E) | ... |
| (F) | ... |
The solution is
Posted: 01/05/2013 20:54
Why is A incorrect. If we put a Restaurant on spot 1, then the other restaurant must be in either spots 4 or 5. If we put the restaurant in spot 7, then the other restaurant must be in either spot 3 or 4....therefore, no matter where you put the "end of the row" restaurant, the other one must be in spot 3,4, or 5....so why is A wrong?
Posted: 01/15/2013 22:18
Hi, Jorge -
The problem with answer A is that the implication goes in only one direction. Yes, if the restaurants are separated by at least two businesses, then one of the restaurants must be in space 3, 4, or 5. However, it is possible for a restaurant to be in space 3 or 5 without satisfying the constraint that the restaurants are separated by two businesses, e.g., in the ordering: R T R V S O P. Therefore [A] is not equivalent to the original constraint in terms of its effect on the ordering.
Hope this helps! Please feel free to post again if you have more questions.
Best,
Lyn
The problem with answer A is that the implication goes in only one direction. Yes, if the restaurants are separated by at least two businesses, then one of the restaurants must be in space 3, 4, or 5. However, it is possible for a restaurant to be in space 3 or 5 without satisfying the constraint that the restaurants are separated by two businesses, e.g., in the ordering: R T R V S O P. Therefore [A] is not equivalent to the original constraint in terms of its effect on the ordering.
Hope this helps! Please feel free to post again if you have more questions.
Best,
Lyn