Question

To maximize her time in Nomo, Hannah must spend a minimum of two days in each of the other 5 cities she visits, for a total of 10 days outside Nomo. Hence, the most time she can spend in Nomo is four days. This eliminates (C). Now, the other 5 cities could all be in countries Y and Z, which eliminates (E). On the other hand, up to 3 cities could be in country X (and the remaining cities in countries Y and Z), which eliminates (A). If it happens that three of the five cities besides Nomo are located in country Z, Hannah will spend more than four days in that country, eliminating choice (D). This leaves choice (B) as the answer. Let’s check that Hannah can indeed visit four cities in country Y: She visits Nomo in country X for four days. Then if she visits 4 cities in country Y for eight days and 1 city in country Z for two days, she fulfills all the conditions for her trip. So indeed statement (B) must be true. Note the unusual and subtle wording of this question: it asks which one of 5 possibilities must be true. To say that a possibility must be true is to claim that under some circumstances (but not necessarily all) the object of that possibility can be true. For example, to say “it must be true that John can run a four minute mile” is to say that “John ran this particular mile in four minutes can be true.” The key point is that the statement may be true but doesn’t have to be. The possibility must exist, but it need not be realized in every instance. So, in choice (B), the statement “Hannah can visit four cities in Y” must be true because there is a valid scenario in which she does visit four such cities—even though there are other scenarios as well

Short answer

Option (B) is valid as Hannah can visit 4 cities in country Y in a possible scenario.

Step-by-step solution

Understanding the Problem

The problem involves determining the truthfulness of possible scenarios of Hannah's travel plans, given the restrictions on her travel days and locations.

Analyzing the Minimum Days Requirement

Hannah must spend a minimum of 2 days in each of the 5 cities she visits besides Nomo, totaling 10 days outside of Nomo. This means she can spend up to 4 days in Nomo, eliminating the option (C) that suggests otherwise.

Eliminating Options Based on Country Constraints

Since the other 5 cities could be split among countries Y and Z, it eliminates option (E), which assumes a different distribution. Furthermore, the fact that up to 3 cities can be in country X means option (A) is also eliminated.

Considering Excessive Days in One Country

If three of the five cities besides Nomo are in country Z, Hannah will spend more than 4 days in that country, eliminating option (D).

Verifying the Remaining Option

To ensure option (B) is valid, suppose Hannah spends 4 days in Nomo (country X), 8 days visiting 4 cities in country Y, and 2 days in 1 city in country Z. This satisfies all the given conditions, meaning option (B) is possible.

Understanding the 'Must Be True' Concept

The expression 'must be true' implies that under certain conditions, although not always, the situation described can happen. Therefore, option (B) is valid as there is a valid scenario where Hannah visits four cities in Y.

Key concepts

Analytical Reasoning

Analytical reasoning is a core component of the LSAT logic games. It involves examining information, identifying patterns, and drawing logical conclusions. In the context of Hannah's travel problem, analytical reasoning helps break down complex information into manageable parts. Each piece of information, such as the minimum days spent or the countries involved, must be carefully considered.

• Identify the essential restrictions, like the minimum of two days in each city.
• Assess each possible scenario systematically.
• Use elimination to narrow down options by comparing them against the given conditions.

With practice, analytical reasoning enables you to evaluate all the variables effectively and determine a reasonable conclusion based on the constraints.

Conditional Reasoning

Conditional reasoning is pivotal in LSAT questions where conditions or 'if-then' statements dictate the structure of a problem. For Hannah's travel plans, conditional reasoning helps us understand what happens if certain conditions are met, such as specific distributions of cities among countries.
For example, the statement "If Hannah spends 8 days in country Y, then she can visit four cities there" is a simple conditional statement. Here, conditional reasoning allows you to consider various "if" scenarios and deduce possible outcomes.

• Identify the trigger condition ('if' part) and its outcome ('then' part).
• Apply these conditions to each possible answer choice.
• Use logic to rule out inconsistencies.

This approach ensures you keep track of all conditions and focus on solving for those that meet the problem's criteria.

Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning is about moving from general principles to specific conclusions. In logic games, it's the method where you apply general rules to specific conditions to determine the validity of potential scenarios. Hannah's exercise involves using known facts, like the total days or the maximum number of cities in each country, to eliminate false options.

• Start with broad factual information (minimum travel days, number of cities, etc.).
• Use these facts to logically eliminate impossible scenarios or choices.
• Apply deduction to understand which choice remains logically possible under all conditions.

In this way, deductive reasoning is crucial for deciding which outcomes are certain and which are merely possibilities.

Test Preparation

Preparing for LSAT's logic games requires targeted strategies to improve rapidly. Understanding core concepts like those in Hannah's exercise can substantially increase your efficiency during the actual test. Here are some tips to enhance your LSAT test preparation:

• Familiarize yourself with different types of logic game questions.
• Practice diagramming scenarios to visualize relationships and conditions.
• Take timed practice tests to improve your speed and accuracy under exam conditions.

By emphasizing regular practice and focusing on weak areas, you'll build confidence and improve your ability to tackle questions involving analytical, conditional, and deductive reasoning efficiently.