Setup and Rule Diagrams

[Dave Killoran]

Setup and Rule Diagram Explanation

This is a Mapping—Supplied Diagram game.

The game scenario provides a diagram of the park benches that you should use for your main diagram.

The fourth rules states that no green bench stands next to a pink bench. Because there are only three bench colors—green, pink, and red—and the green and pink benches each form contiguous blocks that cannot be next to each other, the red benches must separate the two blocks. Further, because the green and pink bench blocks are both three blocks each, we can infer that the two red benches are exactly opposite of each other on the perimeter of the park. Thus, when the fifth rule establishes that T—a red bench—is on the southeast corner, we can infer that U is on the northwest corner:

PT6-Oct 1992 LG Explanations game 3 setup diagram 1.png

This must be the case otherwise there would not be sufficient room for both of the blocks to conform to the rules.

The sixth rule, which establishes that J—a green bench—is the center bench on the north side, allows us to infer that green benches occupy the three northeast benches and that pink benches occupy the three southeast benches:

PT6-Oct 1992 LG Explanations game 3 setup diagram 2.png

Of course, with J already placed, the remaining two green benches must rotate between K and L. The three pink benches are uncertain, although we know from the final rule that if X is the center south bench then L cannot be the center east bench, forcing K to be the center east bench and L to be the northeast corner bench. Note that the final rule is the only “active” rule in the game at this point, as all the other rules are accounted for and captured within the diagram.

These inferences combine to form the main diagram to the game:

PT6-Oct 1992 LG Explanations game 3 setup diagram 3.png

[ahmed95]

Hello,

I am watching Jon Denning's Virtual Module part "2b" on Mapping Games of Lesson 6 of the Live Online course.

While I was following his setup and prior to beginning with doing the questions, I was wondering after reaching the last rule and applying it (conditional rule); would drawing out two templates be useful? Or should I just proceed with the questions?

As an example:

Template #1 (clockwise): L - K - T - X - Y/Z - Z/Y - U - J
Template #2 (clockwise): K - L - T - Y/Z - X/Y/Z - Z/Y/X - U - J

P.S. I can see an argument that template #2 would make tackling the questions more complicated hence why I assume Jon did not follow through with the templates method.

Thanks in advance!

[Jon Denning]

Hey Ahmed,

Thanks for the question! I figure since it was my explanation you were listening to it probably makes sense for me to jump in here with an answer

First off, you certainly could do templates for this game if you wanted to! In fact you could write out every possibility if you felt inclined, as, by my quick count, there are only ten total orders possible.

But let me tell you why I didn't do either of those—templates or possibilities:

In short, it's due to the fact that the uncertain variables (the K/L, and X/Y/Z) are grouped so neatly, and with such a simple conditional rule constraining them, that templates or possibilities would use up a lot of time clarifying something that's already sufficiently clear! Why bother showing orders, or templates, when I can see from my sole, main diagram the totality of limitations? In other words, I've got a diagram already in place that's plenty powerful, so spending time diagramming further isn't going to give me much return on that investment.

Templates are really useful for taking you from a fairly open, or uncertain, scenario down a limited number of channels to near-total solutions. Here though you're already so close to completion in your main setup that templates waste more time in their creation than they gain you in question speed or accuracy (in my mind, anyway). So I left them alone.

For the sake of a close-at-hand analogy, it's a similar decision process to going from the templates you (correctly) notate above to showing each of the ten solutions written out individually. Would those solutions be more powerful than the two templates you've shown? Yep! Would it be worth it time-wise? Nope! Ditto for the choice to show the templates in the first place: your diagram is sufficient.

The LSAT is a test of constant cost/benefit analysis (in terms of time management, diagramming, what to tackle and what to skip, etc), so even though something might be possible—RC notes, a diagram for LR, templates in LG—that doesn't automatically make it a good idea. It sounds like that's a distinction you're already considering, so well done, and keep it up!

Thanks!

Jon

[alberto]

Good morning its Alberto.

Need help: An explanantion why? And the set up so I can understand what went wrong and why I keep getting this tricky question wrong?

I need to improve my approach, thank you.
Alberto

[Brook Miscoski]

Alberto,

This is an unusual game. The basics are:

1. Draw a box with North, South, East, and West sides.
2. Categorize the variables as green, red, and pink.
3. Place J in the middle of the North side of the box (at the edge) and T at the Southeast corner.
4. Diagram TX TL; this means T can't be surrounded by both X and L.
4. Realize that since green and pink are in two groups that can't touch, reds must separate them. This means that U is in the Northwest corner (Inorth central, northeast, and east central), greens are around the Northeast corner, and pinks are around the Southwest corner (west central, southwest, south central).
5. The game is pretty much done except for some attention to exact placement and the LTX rule.

Here is a basic setup showing the initial information they give and then at the bottom the general inferences you can make using the proper setup.

benches.jpg