June 2013, Section 3, Game Two (Numerical Distributions)

[MichaelJAG]

Dear PowerScore,

PowerScore explanations only worked out the numerical distribution possibilities for the 3:3:0 distribution during the original game set-up. However, the game actually tested the 3:2:1 distribution way more frequently than the others: 5 out of 7 questions to be exact. PowerScore did not, understandably, work out the possible distributions for 3:2:1, because the possibilities were quite extensive. How can we know to do the same for the real test? I think that I would literally work out every single possible distribution that I could think of before I actually moved on to the questions on the real test, because why would they give it, if they did not mean to test it later in the questions? However, that obviously would take a while with the 3:2:1 distribution. What is the best strategy to use in order to determine if one should spend time at all figuring out possible distributions, how much time should one spend figuring out the possible distributions? In this particular game, not figuring out the possible distributions before answering the actual questions was no problem, because the questions themselves actually gave you the hypothetical possibility (local questions). Will it be like that on all games of this nature? Thank-you.

Regards,

Michael

[David Boyle]

Dear PowerScore,

PowerScore explanations only worked out the numerical distribution possibilities for the 3:3:0 distribution during the original game set-up. However, the game actually tested the 3:2:1 distribution way more frequently than the others: 5 out of 7 questions to be exact. PowerScore did not, understandably, work out the possible distributions for 3:2:1, because the possibilities were quite extensive. How can we know to do the same for the real test? I think that I would literally work out every single possible distribution that I could think of before I actually moved on to the questions on the real test, because why would they give it, if they did not mean to test it later in the questions? However, that obviously would take a while with the 3:2:1 distribution. What is the best strategy to use in order to determine if one should spend time at all figuring out possible distributions, how much time should one spend figuring out the possible distributions? In this particular game, not figuring out the possible distributions before answering the actual questions was no problem, because the questions themselves actually gave you the hypothetical possibility (local questions). Will it be like that on all games of this nature? Thank-you.

Regards,

Michael

Hello MichaelJAG,

As for "Will it be like that on all games of this nature?", that's a good question, but there may be great variance. E.g., there may be only a few distributions that can be solved quickly and completely, but the questions may add in extra considerations that take a lot of time. Conversely, there may be some extensive distributions that take a long time to solve, but after you do that, the questions are easy. So don't expect all games to be the same.
Re " What is the best strategy to use in order to determine if one should spend time at all figuring out possible distributions, how much time should one spend figuring out the possible distributions?", that's more of an art than a science, maybe. If it seems it would take a huge amount of time to figure out all the distributions, try figuring out just the simpler ones, and maybe one example of each distribution. (E.g., if the 3-2-1 had a lot of possible variants, then maybe figure out just one of them, so that you have at least one template to go off of.) If you still can't answer any of the questions, then you may have to go back and do a few more examples/variants of each distribution, then try the questions again.
It is good that you are thinking about "test strategy": indeed, one of the traps LSAC has, is to bog students down thinking and strategizing about how they handle complicated games etc.! But if you go into distribution games (and other kinds of problems) with a sense of balance, e.g., "I'll work on getting all the inferences, but not if there are too many of them", that can be very helpful.

Hope this helps,
David