How to Interpret Words on Logic Games

Sometimes, LSAT Logic Games seem to have some ambiguity. From the way things are written it’s not clear how to draw a set of rules.

The trick is that the game itself generally answers the question in the intro paragraph. It’s common to ignore this paragraph to get to the rules. But in the case of any confusion, you should go over this with a fine toothed comb.

For instance, a student asked this about game 1 on LSAT PT 66.

Cant it be J or O? Why is it J? The question asks if L doesn’t lead a Wednesday session then who must lead Thursday. Wouldn’t lead mean morning session?

Basically the game has people instructing sessions. The student interpreted the word “lead” to mean “teach the first session”. This isn’t an unreasonable interpretation of the word lead in isolation.

To figure it out, you need to look at the actual intro paragraph.

“….one session being held each morning and one each afternoon. Each session will be led by….”

In context, it is clear that each session has a leader. So the morning session has a leader, AND the afternoon session has a leader. No ambiguity.

I cannot think of a SINGLE instance where a student came to me with an ambiguity in logic games that wasn’t resolvable by the text itself. Generally the intro paragraph.

It takes a bit of time to sort it out, but it takes even more time to go through the game with a mistaken or confused understanding of the setup. Always resolve ambiguities, and know that they can be resolved.