Setup and Rule Diagrams

[Dave Killoran]

Setup and Rule Diagram Explanation

This is an Advanced Linear: Balanced, Numerical Distribution game.

The game scenario presents a Linear situation where three manufacturing plants are visited, along with at least one of five executives. Although the three plants are visited one at a time in some order, the game has an unusual twist in that the number of executives tied to each visit varies. Because each site must be visited by at least one executive, we will create a diagram with one space each for the executives, with the understanding that two additional executives must be assigned in the top row:

PT56-Dec2008_LGE-G4_srd1.png

Rule #1. The first rule establishes a simple sequential relationship:

PT56-Dec2008_LGE-G4_srd2.png

From this relationship it follows that H cannot be the first plant inspected and F cannot be the last plant inspected, leaving dual-options on both:

PT56-Dec2008_LGE-G4_srd3.png

Rule #2. This rule links two different variable sets and establishes that F is visited by only one executive:

PT56-Dec2008_LGE-G4_srd4.png

Rule #3. This rule creates a sequencing relationship between Q, R, and T:

PT56-Dec2008_LGE-G4_srd5.png

Accordingly, R and T cannot visit the first site, and Q cannot visit the last site (because R and T could both visit the last site, it is possible for Q to visit the second site). We can create Not Laws reflecting those two facts:

PT56-Dec2008_LGE-G4_srd6.png

Rule #4. This rule establishes another sequence, but because of the language stating that S’s visit “cannot take place after” any site visited by V, we must use the greater than or equal to sign:

PT56-Dec2008_LGE-G4_srd7.png

This rule does not allow for any Not Laws, but if V visits the first site, then S must visit the first site, and if S visits the last site, V must visit the last site.

Within this game, the executives are clearly a point of concern because of the uncertainty of how many visit each site. From the scenario, we know that five executives visit three sites, with at least one executive visiting each site, and from the second rule F must be visited by only one executive. This creates two numerical distributions of executives-to-sites:

PT56-Dec2008_LGE-G4_srd8.png

Adding all of this information together, we arrive at the final setup for the game:

PT56-Dec2008_LGE-G4_srd9.png

[Frank]

Hey,

My troubles with this game came from the rule which says "The site visit that includes Q must take place before any site visit that includes either R or T"

I've come across some other games similar to this where the OR means that only one of the variable has to go behind and the other can come before (basically for this example I thought it could look like this R/T > Q > R/T or Q > R/T). Is it the word 'any' that modifies this rule so that both R and T have to come after Q?

Thanks for your help,

Frank

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Frank,

Yes, you are exactly right—the "any" is causing a change here. I addressed this in the context of a larger discussion involving either/or, over at http://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewto ... 1784#p1789.

That's the response specific to this rule, so please check that out and let me know if it clears this up for you (the whole discussion might be worth reading, too). Thanks!

[Sherry001]

Hello ;
I always have trouble diagramming rules with must . Even though I understand "must
" rules to indicate a necessary variable,I have trouble understanding them I am traumatized
How can I avoid or learn to know when to understand must in context or conditional?
.
here's an example from a game I just did , and really had trouble diagraming .

The site that includes Quinn must take place before any site visit that included either Rodriguez or Taylor.



Yes,in plain English that to me, just means Q has to occur before both of R and T .

BUT the must from other games I've done tells me this necessary.


Thanks for your help.
Sherry

[Jon Denning]

Hey Sherry,

Thanks for the question! You're actually right on both counts: "must" does indicate that something is required, and in that rule what's required is that Q go before R and T.

It seems like maybe the hang up has to do with conditional reasoning and the idea of necessary conditions, but that's not in play here. All this is is a sequencing rule, and like a lot of "rules" it uses strong/absolute language..."must," "always," "cannot," are all common words in LG rules, as they help to establish things with certainty.

Imagine I said that "Q must be 4th," or "Q must be first or last." Same thing. It tells me something definitive, but not something conditional in the traditional sense (where the behavior of one condition is known to indicate the behavior of another condition, "if...then" style).

So hopefully that's both good news—you had this one correct all along!—and clears up the confusion. Thanks!

[LSATer]

Hello,

I have a different question about this set up. About Rule 3 and 4.
Rule 3 tells us that Q must take place before R and T.
Rule 4 tells us that S cannot take place after V. So essentially S has to be before V.

While doing the questions, I realize that SV are allowed to stack up on the same day as long as S is "before" V.
So why is it that Q can't stack up with R and T?


Thank you,

LSATer

[Charlie Melman]

Hi LSATer,

When we say that Q has to be before R and T, we mean that Q has to be to the left of both R and T. There is only one possible way that Q can relate to R and T: Q must be before it.

When we say that S can't be after V, we mean that S could be before V or at the same time. Notice that there are three ways that two pieces can relate to one another, time-wise: one could be before, after, or at the same time as the other. This rule just rules out the possibility that S is after V, leaving the other two. The first rule says we can only have the "before" possibility.

Also, you don't have to put S above (or "before") V on your diagram. You could stack V on top of S or S on top of V. Either way, they occur at the same time.

Hope this clears things up.

[Davids]

Hello,

I am wondering what the finished setup looks like for this game. After factoring in the numerical distributions and orders of H, F, and M, I got nine boards. Then, I went board by board and made inferences based on the rules. After I was done it took a long time and it did not really help me with the questions. Did I do something wrong?

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, DavidS,

The game could be set up as follows:



The idea is that there are three visits into which we're grouping the executives.

Separately, we have to determine the possible distributions of executives to visits. We know there's exactly one in F, but the other possibilities are that there are exactly two executives in each of the other visits or there is another visit with exactly one and another with exactly 3.

You could work out a couple of these distributions, but you will likely find that there are not deductions significant enough to warrant the effort.

The only two templates I would consider creating for this game have to do with the placement of Q.

If Q goes to the second visit, you know that both R and T are on the third visit. Then you know S will be in the first visit. V is a free agent.

If Q goes to the first visit, you know far less. R and T hurdle the uncertainty between the second and third visits. S and V are essentially randoms.

As you observed, there are far too many possibilities to start mapping everything out in advance. Once you realize that you're spinning your wheels a little bit running through possibilities, stop what you're doing and jump straight into the questions.

I hope this helps!

[Juanq42]

Hi,

For this question, I definitely overcomplicated the diagramming, and while i did remind myself to remain aware of the distribution, this extra element made this game feel even more complicated.

Does this game allow for the distributions to be interchanged?

(i.e. 2-2-1 can also create a 1-2-2 or 2-1-2 distribution)

Are there any deductions worth diagramming from these distributions?