Thanks for hosting this! I’m 400+ pages into your LSAT Trainer. Stuck a bit and I hope you can clear it up.
Game 3 | PT 32, G3 (page 420) of your book has the following rule:
“At least one composition is performed either after O and before S, or after S and before O.” I thought I understood your explanation and notation:
S _ …O, O_…S Your explanation: “S and O can’t be next to each other.”, hence the “at least” wording.
Game 4 | PT 35, GR (page 421) where I tried to apply that same concept to the following, it was incorrect. How is it different?
“Paton and Sarkis were each hired at least one year before Madison and at least one year after Nilsson.” which I diagrammed as:
N_…P_…M , N_…S_…M
Your diagram is N – P , S – M
I interpreted the rule to mean that P and S come before M and after N but also that P and S cannot be next to N or M – due to the “at least” wording like in the question above. But, i think your diagram says they can and the answers to the questions in that section reflect that they can. Specifically, you have P being able to go in 90, 91 or 92. And I didn’t think it could go in 90 b/c it would be next to N in 89 and furthermore I didn’t think it could go in 91 b/c it would be next to S in 92.
I’m sure there’s a nuance that I’m missing – there usually is:( I think it may be the words “at least” threw me off.
Can you help? Thanks:).