- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 5972
- Joined: Mar 25, 2011
- Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:22 pm
#88732
Setup and Rule Diagram Explanation
This is a Grouping: Partially Defined, Numerical Distribution game.
The game scenario establishes that five students will review three plays. However, in a twist that increases the difficulty of the game, each student reviews one or more of the three plays. This turns the game into a Partially Defined scenario, and, prior to considering the rules, each student can theoretically review each of the three plays, and each play can be reviewed by all five students. However, the rules reduce the number of possibilities significantly.
From a diagramming standpoint, either the plays or the students can be chosen as the base. This type of situation has come up before (a good example is October 2001, Game #2), and it can be difficult to decide which should be the base (although, fortunately, the game can be done successfully with either variable set as the base). One way to help to determine the base is to glance at the rules—given the uncertainty of the numbers in each variable set, if the rules tend to define one group more than the other, that group will typically be the better base. In this case, the rules seem to focus on the students, and thus the students will be the base for the game, leading to the following initial scenario:
The first rule directly addresses the numbers, stating that both K and L review fewer plays than M:
Thus, M must review either 2 or 3 plays, and K and L must review 1 or 2 plays.
The second rule creates a negative grouping relationship between J and L, and J and M:
The first rule establishes that M reviewed 2 or 3 plays. This rule indicates that J and M cannot have any reviewed plays in common. Thus, M cannot review all 3 plays (this would automatically create a violation of this rule), and therefore M must review exactly 2 plays (and J must review exactly 1 play). In addition, from the first rule, then, K and L must each review exactly 1 play:
The third rule assigns T to both K and O:
With T assigned to K, K is closed to reviewing additional plays.
The fourth rule creates two students with identical reviewing rosters. Because of the numerical distribution, those two students have to be either two of J, K, and L, or both M and O.
Two final notes:
This is a Grouping: Partially Defined, Numerical Distribution game.
The game scenario establishes that five students will review three plays. However, in a twist that increases the difficulty of the game, each student reviews one or more of the three plays. This turns the game into a Partially Defined scenario, and, prior to considering the rules, each student can theoretically review each of the three plays, and each play can be reviewed by all five students. However, the rules reduce the number of possibilities significantly.
From a diagramming standpoint, either the plays or the students can be chosen as the base. This type of situation has come up before (a good example is October 2001, Game #2), and it can be difficult to decide which should be the base (although, fortunately, the game can be done successfully with either variable set as the base). One way to help to determine the base is to glance at the rules—given the uncertainty of the numbers in each variable set, if the rules tend to define one group more than the other, that group will typically be the better base. In this case, the rules seem to focus on the students, and thus the students will be the base for the game, leading to the following initial scenario:
The first rule directly addresses the numbers, stating that both K and L review fewer plays than M:
Thus, M must review either 2 or 3 plays, and K and L must review 1 or 2 plays.
The second rule creates a negative grouping relationship between J and L, and J and M:
The first rule establishes that M reviewed 2 or 3 plays. This rule indicates that J and M cannot have any reviewed plays in common. Thus, M cannot review all 3 plays (this would automatically create a violation of this rule), and therefore M must review exactly 2 plays (and J must review exactly 1 play). In addition, from the first rule, then, K and L must each review exactly 1 play:
The third rule assigns T to both K and O:
With T assigned to K, K is closed to reviewing additional plays.
The fourth rule creates two students with identical reviewing rosters. Because of the numerical distribution, those two students have to be either two of J, K, and L, or both M and O.
Two final notes:
O can review 1, 2, or 3 plays.
With this information in hand, it is time to move on to the questions.J and M must jointly review all 3 plays. Thus, if J reviews a play, M reviews the other 2 plays. If J does not review a play, then M must review that play. If M reviews a play, then J does not review that play.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Dave Killoran
PowerScore Test Preparation
Follow me on X/Twitter at http://twitter.com/DaveKilloran
My LSAT Articles: http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/author/dave-killoran
PowerScore Podcast: http://www.powerscore.com/lsat/podcast/
PowerScore Test Preparation
Follow me on X/Twitter at http://twitter.com/DaveKilloran
My LSAT Articles: http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/author/dave-killoran
PowerScore Podcast: http://www.powerscore.com/lsat/podcast/
In my haste I accidentally left out K and O on that original list.