I used elimination for this question.
B is wrong because rule two says that R can’t attend Goal Sharing.
C is wrong because it’s missing Feedback. The diagram from question 15 shows that R can attend F.
D is wrong because it’s missing information overload. The correct answer from the first question shows that R can attend information overload.
Only A and E are left. Can R attend leadership?
I looked at the correct answer to the first question, and I saw that no rule prevents you from switching S and R between Information Overload and Leadership.
So R can attend Leadership and A is CORRECT. Remember, if something isn’t explicitly forbidden by the rules, then it’s allowed.
Want a free Logic Games lesson?
Get a free sample of the Logic Games Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for going faster at logic games
Logan says
With all of the respect and appreciation, while your answer is still correct, you misread the question. It asks for all of the talks for which “R AND S could attend TOGETHER,” so saying you can eliminate an answer because it excludes a conference for which R can attend alone is really not sufficient.
Memberraechel mills says
Hi Logan, thank you for raising this question! I see what you mean, but I think you may have been tripped up by the wording a bit. Here, “switching S and R between Information Overload and Leadership” doesn’t necessarily mean swapping R for S. It refers to moving R and S around between Information Overload and Leadership.
So, looking back at the setup in Question 14 Option C, Q and R are attending Information Overload and S is attending Leadership. BUT, there is no rule that requires S or R to attend Information Overload – Q could attend that conference alone, or with either R or S. Therefore, Leadership could be attended by only R, only S, or R and S together, meaning S and R can be switched between Information Overload and Leadership. This eliminates Option E because it doesn’t include Leadership as one of the conferences R and S could attend together. Hope that helps!
Logan says
Sorry, I should have specified that I was referring to the reasoning for D being wrong, not E. I stand by my original statement that there’s an error in this explanation.
The elimination of choice D reads: “D is wrong because it’s missing information overload. The correct answer from the first question shows that R can attend information overload. ”
This would be a correct explanation if it had instead said “D is wrong because the correct answer from the first question can be rearranged such that the latter Q switches with the latter S, thereby putting R and S into I together, which no rule prevents.”
Instead, as quoted above, it only says that R can go into I (with Q). This does nothing to prove that R and S can go into I together.
In other words, this explanation that you’ve given to justify why R and S can go into L together, ALSO needs to be specified for why R and S can go into I together, as “The correct answer from the first question shows that R can attend information overload,” is not sufficient to prove that both R AND S can attend I. Maybe it’s what the author meant, but it’s not what the explanation says.
MemberStephen H Dause says
You wrote, “I looked at the correct answer to the first question, and I saw that no rule prevents you from switching S and R between Information Overload and Leadership.” I was a little confused by this — isn’t the relevant part only that, given the correct listing from Question 14, no rule prevents you from moving R from Information Overload to Leadership? Also, “Switching S and R between Information Overload and Leadership” seems ambiguous, because I think it could be interpreted to mean that you can move S from Leadership to Information Overload and do nothing else, which is not allowed.
FounderGraeme Blake says
Thanks! Glad you like them. Spread the word :)
Also, if you have a moment could you leave what you wrote here? https://lsathacks.com/reviews/
Jessica says
Thank you so much for providing such amazing test resources. It is super important that we think about why answers are right and wrong in the correct way and your explanations are very understandable and comprehensive. I really, really appreciate the hard work you’ve put in to make these resources available!