Diagram

[sethgrant]

I know I am missing a BIG inference on game 3 and can't figure it out. I know this one should have been easy. I would love to see how others diagrammed them and set up the conditions. thanks for the help.

[noah]

One of our teachers is looking at this right now for you and should post her work later today.

[aileenann]

* * * Shorter Answer

This is one of those games that tends to be harder because it doesn’t have a very close analog to a standard game type. You could treat it partly as some kind of ordering game, but I don't know that such treatment (coupled with a special condition to connect slots 1 and 8) will get you any additional mileage. Better to just take the spatial set-up they give and adjust to the new system.

Spelling it out initially, we can get some relatively straightforward inferences. Namely, if O and P both cannot sit next to R - for shorthand I'll just say that O and P dislike R - neither of them can sit in seats 3 or 5. Similarly if neither K nor L 'likes' G, then that too is going to pose a problem. Here, it's harder to make inferences though because we don't know where G is sitting.

Now, if you've drawn it out in a circle/table, you should be able to see that we do get some sort of a spatial pattern from what we know. For example, the only seats left open for O and P are 2, 6, 7, and 8. If neither O nor P takes seat 2, the only other configuration they can take is 6 and 8. So either O or P takes seat 2 or O and P are assigned to 6 and 8 (though so far it doesn't matter who sits where in those two seats).

One approach during the test might be then to try frames on these two set ups to see if that leads to additional inferences. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell this approach doesn’t lead to additional inferences _ this is just a game that is highly constraint driven. Draw out a few frames to assure yourself of this fact.

In fact, one lesson to be learned from this game _ other than flexibility as to dealing with unfamiliar setups _ is the fact that sometimes games are more constraint driven and less inference driven. One way you can see this is the way the questions are written for Game 3. The majority of questions add additional question-specific constraints (cf questions 15-18), probably because there isn’t enough certainty in the system until those additional constraints are added.

That said, there are still some smart observations you can make in this case. For example, one thing to note is that there doesn’t seem to be any special rule for wives vs. husbands. So unless our constraints tell us otherwise, we can treat each member of a marital unit as interchangeable _ notice that the married couples even tend to "˜dislike’ the same other element in the game (for example both K and L dislike G). This observation can be helpful in generation examples to prove or disprove an answer choice making simple modifications to a pre-existing arrangement.

Another observation is that some individuals are much easier or harder to place than are others. For example, since so many people need to avoid G (spouse, F, as well as K and L), I would probably place her first keeping mind that there are a limited number of individuals (two of the tolerant individuals, S and R already placed) who can sit next to G.

* * * Illustration

Just to show that it's still possible to work through an example, let's go through problems 17 and 18 for this game (explanations courtesy of Noah!).


For 17: With L in slot 2, who can go in slot 3? O and P are already restricted from doing so, G cannot because of the fourth rule, and K cannot because it’s L’s spouse. Since S and R are already place, that leaves only F.

For 18: Since F and G must surround R, we can put them in and indicate that they may switch spots. If we imagine that G is in slot 3, then K and L cannot be in slot 2, forcing them into 6 and 8 (and again, we’re not sure who is in which seat). That leaves O and P to take seats 2 and 7 in some manner. Looking at all the options, O can sit next to anyone except R and P (for obvious reasons) as well as F because of the relationship between G and the K/L pair.

* * * Additional information

There is at least one other circle game in recent LSAT's. You can check out a forum post on this topic here:

pt41-s2-g4-eight-people-sit-at-a-table-t203.html

For some reason, that game had more possible inferences than this one does.

[FlaneurR675]

This is a circular game but closer to a linear game because it is lacking in rules about elements facing one another. Therefore, the best diagram for this is a simple linear diagram with an extra seat on each end to indicate that 1 and 8 are next to each other:

_ |_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ |_
8|1 2 3 45 678|1

Rules
1. no one sits next to spouse
2. S in 1, R in 4
3. P and O don't sit next to R
4. K and L don't sit next to G

One major inference that people seem to miss in this game is that G cannot sit in seat 2 or 6, because G sitting in either of those spots render seat 3/5 empty. For instance, seat 3 is already limited by rule #3, and if G occupies 2, K and L (rule 4) and F (rule 1) are further ruled out.

In this game, framing should be avoided as it leads to too many different scenarios.