Diagram

[xoutteam]

I was wondering what set up would I use on this particular section (18-23). It seems like a number line type of set up but I am having hard times breaking it down as such.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

You're exactly right to use a number line as the set up for this game. I've attached a set up for this game as well as notated the constraints. This game is definitely a numbered ordering game, even though it has a partial tree that we might be familiar with from relative ordering games.



Let me know if you've gotten as far as the set up but need help getting though the questions. If so, pick out one or two that you'd like to see worked through. I'd be happy to walk you through a couple of questions...

[Nina]

would you suggest frame this game? i found this kind of game with two possible chunks are especially difficult to grasp, like this one, i know that loose chunk h/m _ _ + m/h, and L-F-GK will definitely overlap, but still can't find an efficient way to frame. does anyone have a better idea?

thanks a lot!

[yessenia.gee]

Is there a mistake on the diagram... Would there be two spaces in between M and H?

[hnadgauda]

Why is the first rule not diagrammed as follows: H/M _ _ M/H?

[e.sterlingsmith]

Why is the first rule not diagrammed as follows: H/M _ _ M/H?

Because the rule states there must be at least two sessions between H and M not exactly two.Therefore they can't be directly next to each other and they can't have just one session between.

[JennaR794]

I'm wondering why there is no rule in the diagram that says "H/M_ _ +M/H"?

[ohthatpatrick]

There is, they just (confusingly) chose to notate the 4 things that can't happen, rather than the 1 thing that must happen.

They could have written:
H/M __ __ + M/H

and that would suffice.

Instead they ruled out the ways to break the rule. Since H and M need at least 2 people in between them,
you can't have H and M next to each other, hence the ~(HM) and ~(MH).
you can't have only one person in between H and M, hence the ~(H_M) and ~(M_H)

If you avoid those four things, then you're complying with the rule.

But, yes, it was pretty weird to notate it that way, rather than just writing the actual rule with one, conventional notation.
H/M __ __ + M/H

[JorgeL203]

There is, they just (confusingly) chose to notate the 4 things that can't happen, rather than the 1 thing that must happen.

They could have written:
H/M __ __ + M/H

and that would suffice.

Instead they ruled out the ways to break the rule. Since H and M need at least 2 people in between them,
you can't have H and M next to each other, hence the ~(HM) and ~(MH).
you can't have only one person in between H and M, hence the ~(H_M) and ~(M_H)

If you avoid those four things, then you're complying with the rule.

But, yes, it was pretty weird to notate it that way, rather than just writing the actual rule with one, conventional notation.
H/M __ __ + M/H

For Basic Ordering LGs, my strategy is to go rule by rule and diagram one rule at a time, noting on my number line which slot can't have which element. I see that the attachment above (and the MP hand drawn solutions) do not indicate which slots on the number line can't have which elements. Can you please explain when one should/should not notate the elements that can't go in a particular slot on a number line? I don't want to waste time writing this information down, if I don't have to.

[Laura Damone]

This is really a matter of personal preference. Some folks feel that when a Basic Ordering game has longer chains of ordering rules, it starts to bleed over into Relative Ordering territory, and you'd never take the time to represent all the exclusion inferences on a Relative Ordering game because the Tree diagram is enough.

Others appreciate it when exclusions pile up under slots, because if there are enough exclusions, you're left with a few discreet options. These, in turn, can be useful in the game and even provide framing opportunities. In this game, F, G, K, and J are all excluded from position 1, leaving you with three discreet options: L, M and H. If you framed this out, you'd get a great frame for M1, you'd realize H1 is impossible, and get a skeleton frame for L1 (A skeleton frame is what I call a frame that doesn't lead to any inferences!). These frames are really useful and let me answer 19 and 23 without scratchwork, and define the scratchwork on 20-22.

That said, a pile up of exclusions under slot 1 isn't the only way to get these frames. I actually found them a different way. The L-F-GK tree took up so much real estate that I decided to peek at where it could go. Since putting it in the last 4 slots is the easiest to envision, I looked at that first. That's impossible because it would force H and M to be too close together. So, if L can't be 4th, and we already know it can't be 2nd, that gives us two discreet options: L1 and L3. I framed these out and got a great frame for L3 that forced M into 1, and a skeleton frame for L1. These are the exact two frames you'd get if you framed around the exclusion pile up.

For a game like this, I personally opt not to do a bunch of exclusions because I can use my spatial reasoning skills to figure out the relationship between the L-F-GK tree and the H/M open chunk. But in a game that isn't providing me much in the way of other inferences, I'd definitely jot down the exclusions and try to leverage them into some options.

Hope this helps!