Diagram

[noah]

Here's a completed open board diagram for this game.
It's a classic in that is shows how the open board destroys this sort of game.

[mturner]

My diagram looked a little different, but I inferred the same information prior to beginning the questions. However, I was stuck on # 9. How can Z have at least one option in common with all of the others? Rule #3 stated that W and Y have no options in common.

I got the answer right, but just by dumb luck.

Please clarify.

Thanks!

[noah]

My first name has a letter in common with each of these names:

Sam
Bob
Hurdie

But none of them have a letter in common. Get it?

If not, here's the straight-up explanation:

The fact that Z has an option in common with every other car doesn't mean that it has to be the same option that is doing that. As you point out, that actually can't be true. But, if Z has two options - which it does - then as long as each other car (other than T) has one of those two, the rule is valid.

Make sense?

[lizcarney5]

Hi, my biggest problem with this was the wording of the first and second rules: "V has power windows and a sunroof" and "W has power windows and a leather interior." Because they didn't state "ONLY" I assumed that V could still have a leather interior and that W could have a sunroof." Because of other rules I was able to eliminate the option of W having a sunroof because X had to have more options than W. But I still assumed V could have a leather interior. Was I wrong? And how do I avoid making similar incorrect inferences in the future?

[noah]

You were right to keep your options open . Those rules did not limit those cars to the two options assigned to each - from those rules, we cannot tell if the third option is assigned. As you suggest, the rule would have to say "only" or "exactly" or something similar to mean, well, only or exactly those two options!

Good reading!

[pathosj]

Hi, my biggest problem with this was the wording of the first and second rules: "V has power windows and a sunroof" and "W has power windows and a leather interior.".... Was I wrong? And how do I avoid making similar incorrect inferences in the future?

What I believe is being referred to here is how V and W come to have only two options. I read it the same way you did, but working it out, V and Z must only have one option in common. Also, Z must have more options than T and T must have one option. Then, Z cannot have 3 options nor 1 option, so Z must have 2 options and T can only have one option.

If Z has 2 options, V can't have 3 options or V and Z would share more than one option in common, so V can only have 2 options. Then, Z must have L and either P or S.

As for W, since W and Y can't share options and since Y must have one option, W can't have 3 options and the 2 options W has are the only ones W could have. Y must have the one remaining option that W doesn't have (which is S) and there you go.

Since you posted in July, I'm not sure if you ever got around to figuring this out, but hopefully this will help someone in the future.

[timsportschuetz]

How long should you spend on this game? I spend 10.5 minutes in total. Although I didn't miss any of the questions on this particular game, I feel like this is way too long... the setup (I always use the Manhattan method) took me roughly 3 minutes. I believe skipping #12 (which took me about 2.5 minutes) would have been a smart choice...

I would love to hear the opinions of others...