Diagram

[noah]

From my initial look, I'm not finding any major inferences -- it seems that the game is resting on clean interpretation of the rules for each question. Somewhat of a slog. Let me look at it again and also ask another teacher. My diagram was rather straightforward, a set of 3 pairs of lines, and I was sure to mark which side is the window side. Let's see what someone else thinks. - N

[aileenann]

I have looked over this game and don't think I have found any really solid inferences. That said, there are a few things to notice about the conditional statements. Most of the inferences I made were more about things that can't happen than about things that can or must happen.

First consider the second and third constraints. The second constraint tells us that if M sits in an aisle seat, L will sit in a window seat next to H, who we know has to be in an aisle seat. The third constraint tells us that if K sits in a window seat next to G in an aisle seat then M has to sit behind I, which means that M must be sitting in a window seat. So we know that if the third constraint is triggered then the second constraint will not be triggered. Similarly, we know that if the second constraint is triggered, then the third constraint will not be triggered.

Similarly, consider the third and fifth constraints. These too are mutually exclusive. If K is in the window seat next to G, since G can't go 3rd K can't go 3rd either. Therefore, if the second constraint is triggered, we can ignore the fifth constraint. Similarly, if the fifth constraint is triggered, we can ignore the third constraint.

So there are a few secondary inferences that do flow from the constraints. However, these take some time to notice and may not be of much use when you get to the questions. For that reason this might be one of those rare games where you have to rely more on the constraints themselves and correctly applying those constraints in order to answer the questions. As a general rule of thumb, you certainly don't want to be spending more than 2-3 minutes doing any set-up (and it's probably better to spend less time than more time when you are not finding any inferences).

[nneamakaeze]

not sure how to diagram...can i get the solutions please? Numbered ordering?

[noah]

It's hard to categorize this game perfectly. There's some numbered ordering elements to it, but it's two rows, and some of the constraints are relative -- and conditional! The diagram here is actually not the key to this game but, as Aileen mentioned above, deft management of the rules. Go ahead and post your solution to one of the problems and we'll look it over to see if you're on the right track.

[interestedintacos]

I went into this game after skipping it with 18 minutes left in the section. I finished the other 3 games smoothly (about 6 minutes each), and then didn't believe how much time I had left. Then I got scared of what this game might have, spent a long time carefully diagramming the rules (including contrapositives), and sure enough got completely bogged down and didn't even finish it! I had so many things written on my page, and I couldn't seem to figure out the quick and easy method or the deductions I thought I must be missing. Before I started to use essentially a form of guess and check I had already wasted around 10 minutes just writing and being confused about inferences.

Obviously sometimes more rules does not mean more inferences and an easier game. It's like they came up with the perfect combo of random combos for rules that wouldn't combine for much. I got so bogged down I even missed the main deduction that there are only 2 placements for G and H until I was 6 or 7 minutes into it.

I even spent forever on question 15 because I messed up and got aisle and window confused.

I suppose the lesson is not to by psyched out and to be prepared for plug and chug games, although I've only faced two of these that I can remember, and I've done all the games from PT 1-38 so far. Are these more common in tests 38-62?

[noah]

I wouldn't say plug and chug are more common. Overall, the LSAT continues to throw a couple of curve balls into 1-2 games. From time to time you see a sparse game, in the sense that you have to work off the rules more than your diagram. It's good you had this experience now, and will be less freaked out when you face a similar one.

[BHofkin]

I actually found this game manageable once I set up two frames in order to get G and H on the diagram:

1. "”G
"”H
"”"”

2. "”"”
"”G
"”H

Question 14 was a bit of an orientation question in disguise (each of the first four choices directly violates one of the constraints), and the others allow us to plug new conditionals into our frames, which constrains the remaining letters enough to be able to deal with them.

In other words, I think this is one of those rare cases where framing is pretty much the only way to handle the game systematically.

[noah]

I actually found this game manageable once I set up two frames in order to get G and H on the diagram:

1. "”G
"”H
"”"”

2. "”"”
"”G
"”H

Question 14 was a bit of an orientation question in disguise (each of the first four choices directly violates one of the constraints), and the others allow us to plug new conditionals into our frames, which constrains the remaining letters enough to be able to deal with them.

In other words, I think this is one of those rare cases where framing is pretty much the only way to handle the game systematically.

That's awesome that you found a way to solve this game more easily. However, I'd need to hear more about this to be convinced that this is really very different than not framing it. The frames you wrote out don't have anything written in other than the placement of the GH chunk. What more can you infer? Frames are truly frames if a whole cascade of inferences flows from each side (or at least one) of the "division."

Tell me more...

[BHofkin]

Good points"”in that case let's not call them true frames. What I'll say, then, is that I found it very helpful to get those two basic scenarios down on paper. Otherwise, the sheer number of constraints is overwhelming.

Like I said, I found the first question in the game to be sort of an orientation question in disguise: Each of the four wrong answer choices directly violates one of the constraints.

The four remaining questions all provide an additional piece of information, which I then plugged into my two scenarios. AT THAT POINT I was able to make some critical inferences for each question and avoid trial-and-error.

In other words, creating two diagrams around G and H served as the basis for the frames I used for each question, even though they didn't provide frames, per se, without the additional information questions 15-18 provide. And since there isn't so much to draw (only six slots), re-drawing didn't take up too much time.

Does that make sense?

[noah]

Makes a lot of sense. Good suggestion, particularly for this game with so many seemingly disconnected rules to juggle.

[eht1991]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that if constraint 3 is triggered, the only possible arrangement of seats is:

K G
I H
M L

From the constraint, we are told that

I
M

is a chunk. We know that this chunk must be placed by the window, because G and H already occupy two of the three aisle seats. This leaves us with

_
I
M

or

I
M
_

We may also infer that K is in a window seat, because the constraint tells us that G and K are next to each other, and from constraint 1, G must be in the aisle. Thus, we have,

K G
I _
M _

or

I _
M _
K G

However, this second arrangement cannot work, because G cannot sit in row 3 (also constraint 1).

So we have:

K G
I _
M _

Now, using constraint 1 and process of elimination, we get

K G
I H
M L

[noah]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that if constraint 3 is triggered, the only possible arrangement of seats is:

K G
I H
M L

That's one of the games I wrote about in our LG guide, and I recall there was one frame like that--nice work. However, we should expect that a frame like that won't come into play very often. If my memory serves me right, there is one question that plays on it.

[esultana]

I think I can add to this game's discussion and hopefully help someone. I came across this game when I was completing this section timed. I found it quite soothing, actually, compared to the fruit stand question.

Because most of the rules are conditional, I decided to try making separate diagrams for each new condition, instead of trying to juggle them all in my head, or apply them all in one big confusing diagram. In addition to the blank diagram (with the knowledge that 2A is either H or G), this is the other diagram I created:

A) Applying primarily condition 2, while keeping in mind conditional 1, 4 and 5:
1. I G
2. L H
3. K M

Diagram A immediately answers questions 14 and 15 without any extra work. This frees up time to focus on 16-18, which are all solved with their own quick diagrams.

In my diagram prep I also created one other diagram - the diagram referred to by eht1991 (kg, ih, ml) but I found this did not directly apply to anything. It did, however, allow me to become more familiar with the rules.

[shodges]

Good points"”in that case let's not call them true frames. What I'll say, then, is that I found it very helpful to get those two basic scenarios down on paper. Otherwise, the sheer number of constraints is overwhelming.

Like I said, I found the first question in the game to be sort of an orientation question in disguise: Each of the four wrong answer choices directly violates one of the constraints.

The four remaining questions all provide an additional piece of information, which I then plugged into my two scenarios. AT THAT POINT I was able to make some critical inferences for each question and avoid trial-and-error.

In other words, creating two diagrams around G and H served as the basis for the frames I used for each question, even though they didn't provide frames, per se, without the additional information questions 15-18 provide. And since there isn't so much to draw (only six slots), re-drawing didn't take up too much time.

Does that make sense?

This is exactly how I approached this game. If I had not of done this, the game would have been made a lot harder just given the sheet number of possibilities that I would of had to keep track of all in my head.

[shodges]

I think I can add to this game's discussion and hopefully help someone. I came across this game when I was completing this section timed. I found it quite soothing, actually, compared to the fruit stand question.

Because most of the rules are conditional, I decided to try making separate diagrams for each new condition, instead of trying to juggle them all in my head, or apply them all in one big confusing diagram. In addition to the blank diagram (with the knowledge that 2A is either H or G), this is the other diagram I created:

A) Applying primarily condition 2, while keeping in mind conditional 1, 4 and 5:
1. I G
2. L H
3. K M

Diagram A immediately answers questions 14 and 15 without any extra work. This frees up time to focus on 16-18, which are all solved with their own quick diagrams.

In my diagram prep I also created one other diagram - the diagram referred to by eht1991 (kg, ih, ml) but I found this did not directly apply to anything. It did, however, allow me to become more familiar with the rules.

What made you gravitate towards making a frame with the second rule? The fact that it affected so many variables?

[noah]

What made you gravitate towards making a frame with the second rule? The fact that it affected so many variables?

Maybe esultana is done with this LSAT stuff!

I think that's probably the reason for the frames. In general, frames are called for when we see a division with consequences.

[steves]

I came across this game in Chap. 13 of the LG Study Guide. When I saw the GH chunk having only two possibilities, I thought that meant we should frame it--even understanding that the "frames" still leave variables for the other 4 positions in each frame. Most of the questions led to plugging and chugging with each set of frames, where one frame was sometimes ruled out quickly.

The solution in the Study Guide didn't exactly go this route--to set the frames up front--but rather re-did the basic diagram with the new condition posed by each question, which often then led to the same frame or frames.

Neither method worked efficiently for me. Up-front frames doubled the drawings for most questions, but re-doing the single diagram to accommodate the question conditions seemed even harder to set up.

Should seeing only two possibilities for the chunk be an indication to frame--even with the other positions undetermined, or should we only frame if most of the positions will be determined? And if there is a good general rule, is this game an exception?

[steves]

I came across this game in Chap. 13 of the LG Study Guide. When I saw the GH chunk having only two possibilities, I thought that meant we should frame it--even understanding that the "frames" still leave variables for the other 4 positions in each frame. Most of the questions led to plugging and chugging with each set of frames, where one frame was sometimes ruled out quickly.

The solution in the Study Guide didn't exactly go this route--to set the frames up front--but rather re-did the basic diagram with the new condition posed by each question, which often then led to the same frame or frames.

Neither method worked efficiently for me. Up-front frames doubled the drawings for most questions, but re-doing the single diagram to accommodate the question conditions seemed even harder to set up.

Should seeing only two possibilities for the chunk be an indication to frame--even with the other positions undetermined, or should we only frame if most of the positions will be determined? And if there is a good general rule, is this game an exception?

Today's practice may suggest an answer to my question above. I just did PT42 Game 3 from 3D Practice Set 1. There was a similar chunk with only two options for its placement. However, that was not apparent to me at first (did not focus on that sufficiently during my too Little Pause) so I did not frame it. Given the discussion above, I might still not have framed it--even focusing on the two options--since other positions were still undetermined within each frame. However, 42/Game 3 without frames took me 20 minutes (which is, unfortunately not too bad for me--and better than a couple weeks ago!) making steady progress throughout the game. Using the frames, at least on that game, would have been faster. So even though using frames on some games may not help much (like this one), perhaps it usually worth the extra time to frame whenever there is a chunk with two options--in case the frames wind up helping a lot (like 42/G3).

[rinagoldfield]

I've attached my diagram below.

As for when to frame -- it's tempting to frame around the GH chunk. In fact, I initially tried that. However, those frames don't yield that many inferences. I didn't include them on my slide.

PrepTest36_Game3_Diagram_Mprep.pdf

(107.94 KiB) Downloaded 426 times

[donghai819]

I've attached my diagram below.

As for when to frame -- it's tempting to frame around the GH chunk. In fact, I initially tried that. However, those frames don't yield that many inferences. I didn't include them on my slide.

PrepTest36_Game3_Diagram_Mprep.pdf

Hi Rina,

I totally agree with you. It is so tempting to frame, but indeed it helps little. Given that there are four conditional rules, can we generalize that it is probably not a good idea trying to frame games that heavily depend on conditional rules? And I would say that most, if not all, conditional games have less inferences. Is it correct?