Nice work on the inferences. I didn't infer anything other than what you did.
Attachment:
Atlas LSAT - PT 56, S2, Game 2.pdf [47.39 KiB]
Downloaded 2382 times
I found the set-up a bit time-consuming, and found it particularly useful to take the constraints out of order, and do a second swing through them, but then the questions were pretty straightforward as long as I was thorough in working out what each new condition meant.
Most of the questions hinged on the issue of who confessed and who did not, or who could have confessed and who could not. (I wonder if anyone was tortured.) I showed my mini diagram for #16, as I think it's typical for this game and it also shows how often you should not go "all the way" with working out scenarios. This is particularly true with a could be true EXCEPT, which is really a MUST BE FALSE question. With must be conditional questions, we should be able to solve it by following the inference chain and without exploring "could be trues".
For #14, on the other hand, you should diagram the new rule: V - Y - X, add in the rest of the game: Z - V - T - Y - X, add in the confession issue:
NC C
Z - V - T - Y - X,
and then the answer is going to be in the unfilled part of the mini-diagram, since it's a "could be true" question. (If it were "which must be true/false", then we'd expect the answer to be about Y or X confessing or not).
Good idea to keep replaying games as you creep towards test day.
Tell me if you have any further thoughts or questions about this game, or if you notice that I've made a mistake.
- Noah