Numerical Distribution

[Kmikaeli]

I am having a bit of problem applying this concept to the lsat logical game training 1-20

I understand how the concept works where an overloaded game distributes its variables in a certain fashion depending on whether the distribution is fixed or not.

Underfunded games where the number of variables is lower compared to the base slots (i.e 3-5) Within these cases we look at the rules to determine how the distribution pattern will work but I am having trouble on applying it to page 49 of the game training book slat preptests 1-20.

The game establishes a 3-5 distribution pattern. When I look at the explanation booklet, it states that after the rules it becomes fixed at 2-1-2-3-1 and that confuses me compared to the lsat logical game book that teaches on numerical distribution. I thought underfunded games distribute the pattern according to variables and not spaces while overloaded games distribute based on spaces.


LOOK BELOW TO WHAT I AM REFERRING TO I MIGHT BE ONTO SOMETHING BASED ON OLD POSTS OF OTHERS.


This is referring to this post http://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewto ... stribution

I noticed the person was having the same problems. I noticed that unbalanced overfunded linear and grouping games typically look at the number of spaces to which each variable is distributed. While both types of games involved in underfunded games differ slightly where linear games that are underfunded most likely bring additional rules to double triple etc... a variable to create a sense of balance. While, underfunded grouping games often establish the same type of pattern as linear games that are underfunded, sometimes (like the example problem i gave all the way above) certain underfunded grouping games look at the space distribution rather than variable distribution pattern even though it is not a overloaded game. I noticed in total that underfunded games can establish a distribution pattern that differs per grouping question. For instance, one underfunded GROUPING question game may look at the distribution of variables, while another underfunded grouping question can look at the distribution of spaces depending on convenience per question.


Last question pertaining to this topic: I noticed that unbalanced games are often mimicked to be balanced in both types of games, but that is not always the case in grouping games where the question I have stated all the way on top satisfies the logic game by making a 2-1-2-3-1 distribution with the space pattern. Thus I should not view Numerical distribution games as a way of making the game balance but rather as a way to simply distribute the variables in any and every way the game scenario and rules state. It could coincidentally lead to balanced games or a splatter of a multitude of variables such as the question I have provided above.

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi Kmikaeli,

Thanks for your question. Let's not get too hung up on the terminology of "allocate" and "receive", "overloaded" or "underfunded." Rather, focus on the fact that there is a numerical relationship, and then look for where the variability is - that is, what can change, compared to what cannot. Let's take a look at the scenario of the game you're asking about (page 49 of the Game Training Volume I):

Each of 5 illnesses is characterized by at least one of 3 symptoms. We don't have a 5-into-3 distribution, because nowhere in the scenario does it say that each symptom must characterize at least one illness, and so we are NOT allocating 5 variables amongst 3 groups. Instead, we need to figure out which of the 3 symptoms characterize each illness. To that end, it is best to use the illnesses as the "base," and the symptoms - as the variable set to distribute across that base. Since there is neither a stated minimum nor a stated maximum number of times we can use each symptom, the symptoms should NOT be used as the base: there would be a tremendously high level of uncertainty if we were to do that.

In determining which is the "receiving" variable set, don't look at size alone. Usually, the receiving set is the smaller of the two, but not always. Here, for instance, the receiving set was the larger of the two: using the 5 illnesses as the base provided a higher level of certainty, with each of the five illnesses (or groups) containing at least one of three symptoms (variables). We can't achieve this level of certainty the other way around. The rules that follow further restrict the number of symptoms per illness, which is how we arrived at the Fixed 2-1-2-3-1 distribution.

For similar Numerical Distribution situations in Grouping Games, check out the following:

October 2001, Game 2
June 2004, Game 4
December 2005, Game 3

Hope this helps a bit!

[Kmikaeli]

I understand that the 3 symptoms as opposed to the 5 illnesses are not stable and thus create mass uncertainty when using it as a base. So, in my process I should realize which variable set is easier to act as a base. Also, my understanding for overloaded and underfunded in grouping games is this: There have to be at least 1 variable out based on the scenario and rules in order to ensure that there is an overloaded game, while underfunded games are quite apparent because they establish a low variable to base set ratio ( 3-5 in this example). Also we should not think of distribution patters within unbalanced games as a way to make it balanced, but rather make it satisfy the logic game.