This is an explanation of the second logic game from Section II of LSAT Preptest 71, the December 2013 LSAT.

Four human resource officers (Rao, Smith, Tipton and Ullman: R, S, T, U) will evaluate the applications of seven job candidates: Farrell, Grant, Hong, Inman, Kent, Lopez and Madsen (F, G, H, I, K, L, M). At least one application will be evaluated by each officer and each application will be evaluated by exactly one officer.

### Game Setup

This is a grouping game. I’ve set it up vertically. You can set this type of game up horizontally too. Either way is fine, depends how your brain works.

I’ve added G to group U. You should always read all the rules before drawing. Often one rule is very easy to draw and you should start there.

I next placed the final rule on the diagram:

The final rule says that S has more candidates than T, so S always has at least two candidates. The arrow reminds me that S has more than T. It’s important to note that Tipton could evaluate at most two candidates. If Tipton evaluated three candidates, then Smith would have to evaluate four, and there would be no candidates left for the other two officers.

This is a non-standard rule, so you’re welcome to use another symbol to remind yourself that S has more than T. But it’s best if you can find a way to draw the rule directly on the diagram. The fewer rules in your list of rules, the better.

Next, is my list of rules. Here are rules 2, 3, and 4:

I’ve drawn rules 2 and 3 slightly differently. I normally prefer a box to show that variables must be or can’t be in the same group. But that doesn’t work for rule 3, so I used the dual arrow to show that Inman can’t go with M or H.

The final rule has a vertical line to the right of K. That symbol means that the group K is in is closed: there can be no more candidates there. This type of rule occurs frequently enough that you should adopt this symbol.

Need help with LG? → Try the LG Mastery Seminar

Solve hard games quickly

401k says

Why there are no answers to this problem? I am struggling with #11 If Farrell’s application is evaluated by Rao, then for how many of the other applicants is the identity of the officer who evaluates it fully determined? It follows from the diagram that the answer should be D) four: L, H, K and G (because we are not counting F), but the answer is E) five. Why?

Sabrina (LSAT Hacks) says

Hi!

If Farrell’s application is evaluated by Rao, we know that:

– Rao evaluates Lopez in addition to Farrell ( rule 2)

– Ullman evaluates at Grant (Rule 1)

– Tipton must evaluate Kent (because Kent has to be evaluated alone, and that eliminates everyone else who could evaluate him)

– Smith must evaluate both Hong and Madsen, because he must evaluate more candidates than Tipton (at least 2), and neither of those can be evaluated by the same person who evaluates Inman (the only other remaining candidate).

So that means we know where 6 of 7 candidates go – Inman could be evaluated by either Ullman or Rao. Subtracting Farrell himself, we know for certain where 5 other candidates go, and the correct answer is (E).

Hope that helps!