Diagram

[jhouseut]

Can some one post an optimized diagram. I'm missing some global deductions that allow q15 and q16 to be determined quickly.

[noah]

Not too many big inferences up front, but here's what I used.

It was important to know that a seminar could come before another one on the same day, for example, p and N could both occur on day 1.

I hope that helps.

[farhadshekib]

Not too many big inferences up front, but here's what I used.

Manhattan LSAT - PT 52, S2, Game 3.pdf

It was important to know that a seminar could come before another one on the same day, for example, p and N could both occur on day 1.

I hope that helps.

Noah, this may seem stupid, but I didn't understand this aspect of the game....

The rules state: "On each day, two of the seminars will be given consecutively".

How do we know which one starts off first? For instance, if P and N are together on day 1, how do we know that P actually came before N?

The rules only suggest that each day contains "one short seminar and exactly one long seminar".

Thank you!

[noah]

Noah, this may seem stupid, but I didn't understand this aspect of the game....

The rules state: "On each day, two of the seminars will be given consecutively".

How do we know which one starts off first? For instance, if P and N are together on day 1, how do we know that P actually came before N?

The rules only suggest that each day contains "one short seminar and exactly one long seminar".

Thank you!

The LSAT makes us all sound stupid to each other, but smart and misguided to the rest of the world!

You seem to have got it, actually - each day, there are two seminars, and one happens before the other. That fact plays into the game in various ways. For example, N and P could be on the same day, even though one must come before the other.

By saying "consecutively", the game writer has allowed for ordering within a day. If he or she didn't, then it's possible the seminars would happen at the same time.

Tell me if that doesn't makes sense.

[rfojas11]

Did anyone else set up different frames for the original diagram?
I set up the ones below and would like some feedback on whether I did the setup correctly. Thank you!

Frame 1:

Day 1: G/O -- H
Day 2: G/O -- T
Day 3: P --N

Frame 2:

Day 1: P -- N
Day 2: G/O -- H
Day 3: G/O -- T

[timmydoeslsat]

You are missing a hypothetical where P and N could be on day 2.

Here is how I would approach framing this game. I would center it around the idea that I know T is either going to be on day 2 or day 3.



I started out framing this game by having a left column for T on day 2, and the right hand column for T on day 3. As you can see, there is only one scenario for the T on day 2, but several things can happen with T on day 3. Often times when framing a game, you could see a situation where a T on day 2 is easy to show, and perhaps a T on a day 3 situation begins to have way too many options and it becomes a counterproductive process, but it was not the case here. A very limited number of possibilities.

I also have shown a bracket where possible which indicates that the column can be flipped, allowing for the bottom part of the bracket to actually come before the one at the top. We know the seminars are given consecutively, but we do not know whether a short goes before a long or vice versa for any of the three days.

[rfojas11]

Thank you for clearing my confusion. I definitely glossed over the fact that the short and long seminars don't have to be in a certain order.

As a follow-up question, did you end up using the frames where P is on the 2nd day and H is on 2nd day to answer Q15?

Thanks again!

[timmydoeslsat]

Thank you for clearing my confusion. I definitely glossed over the fact that the short and long seminars don't have to be in a certain order.

As a follow-up question, did you end up using the frames where P is on the 2nd day and H is on 2nd day to answer Q15?

Thanks again!

To answer 15, I simply used the tree given in construction of the frames I made, as the local information given did not really limit the scope of the frames. I would have had to create some mini skeleton diagrams for this question and fixed the global frames to match had I not used the tree inference.

Before I made the frames, I had two separate ordering trees: O and G prior to T. P prior to N.

This question is simply combining the two pieces of information to make one big tree. So we will know that, with the local information of N prior to O, P is prior to O.

[eht1991]

Hey Noah, regarding your original diagram, can't we also infer that T didn't occur on the first session of day 2? Since O and G must come before T, and they are both short seminars (hence they can't both happen on day 1), the only way that T could go on day two would be if either O or G took the first slot on day 2. Not sure if this is extremely useful, but it makes sense right?

Best,

Ernest

[noah]

Hey Noah, regarding your original diagram, can't we also infer that T didn't occur on the first session of day 2? Since O and G must come before T, and they are both short seminars (hence they can't both happen on day 1), the only way that T could go on day two would be if either O or G took the first slot on day 2. Not sure if this is extremely useful, but it makes sense right?

Best,

Ernest

Nice one, Ernest!

If I had figured that out as I drew the diagram, I probably would have put T in a cloud from the second slot of day 2 until last slot of day 3. When it's about a 50-50 between restricted and permitted slots, I prefer showing where stuff can go over where it can't.

I'm definitely tempted to go back and edit the diagram, but I won't. We often intentionally leave some bonus inferences out since we don't want to make folks think that you have to get every single inference in a diagram for that diagram to be useful--it makes some people scared to move on to the questions! (Though I don't think I saw that inferences when I did the diagram, so I can't claim to be doing some sort of masterful teaching move here!)

[ShubhiT942]

"Until" is an indicator of a necessary condition. So basically, the rule is saying that for N to occur, P MUST occur. However, because the necessary condition indicator is "until" I assumed that this means that P could occur before N or on the same day as N but can't occur after N.

[VendelaG465]

Noah, this may seem stupid, but I didn't understand this aspect of the game....

The rules state: "On each day, two of the seminars will be given consecutively".

How do we know which one starts off first? For instance, if P and N are together on day 1, how do we know that P actually came before N?

The rules only suggest that each day contains "one short seminar and exactly one long seminar".

Thank you!

The LSAT makes us all sound stupid to each other, but smart and misguided to the rest of the world!

You seem to have got it, actually - each day, there are two seminars, and one happens before the other. That fact plays into the game in various ways. For example, N and P could be on the same day, even though one must come before the other.

By saying "consecutively", the game writer has allowed for ordering within a day. If he or she didn't, then it's possible the seminars would happen at the same time.

Tell me if that doesn't makes sense.

I had a question in regards to the same thing. I see now that P& N can be in the same day but ONLY if i was to put P on top then N on the bottom row correct?

[ohthatpatrick]

Correct, because N can't go until P has already gone.

Do if N goes first on day 2, then P can go second on day 2 (or any day, just an example)

[AnnaT620]

For question 14, why can't Telemarketing be the second seminar on day 2 (with Objections being the first seminar on day 2)? That's the reason I've struggled with eliminating D and choosing E.

Thanks!