Setup and Rule Diagrams

[Dave Killoran]

Setup and Rule Diagram Explanation

This is a Basic Linear: Unbalanced: Overloaded game.

The basic scenario for the game is as follows:

PT21-Dec 1996 LGE-G2_srd1.png

The first rule is a fairly simple conditional rule:

PT21-Dec 1996 LGE-G2_srd2.png

The second is conditional as well:

PT21-Dec 1996 LGE-G2_srd3.png

The third rule features a compound sufficient condition:

PT21-Dec 1996 LGE-G2_srd4.png

The contrapositive of the third rule is particularly important in this game:

PT21-Dec 1996 LGE-G2_srd5.png

When translated using the fact that there are only three colors, this is identical to:

PT21-Dec 1996 LGE-G2_srd6.png

This information can then be added to the first two rules:

PT21-Dec 1996 LGE-G2_srd7.png

In games such as this one with unusual conditional rules, always consider the contrapositives. For example, question #8 can easily be solved by taking the contrapositive of the second rule:

PT21-Dec 1996 LGE-G2_srd8.png

Accordingly, if light 1 is Y, then light 2 cannot be G, and the correct answer is (A).

[ellenb]

Dear Powerscore,

I have read the explanation in the book for this game, however I do not understand how they got to:
2G-->1G-->3G

(we can connect only 2g to 3 G, however how do we know 1G-->3G?

[David Boyle]

Dear Powerscore,

I have read the explanation in the book for this game, however I do not understand how they got to:
2G-->1G-->3G

(we can connect only 2g to 3 G, however how do we know 1G-->3G?

Hello Ellen,

What page and what book, if I may ask? Thanks,

David

[ellenb]

LSAT logic games setups encyclopedia volume 2 page 21

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Ellen,

This connection is derived from the combination of the second and third rules, and it's an entire chain, not a piecemeal chain, meaning you can't isolate a part of it. That is why there are brackets around part of the rule that walls off 1G from 3G.

Thanks!

[ellenb]

So, if I knew that A-->C and I also had A-->B than, I techincally could say (A-->B)-->C ?

thanks

Ellen

[Dave Killoran]

Yes, you could. In this instance I showed it in this fashion because of the chain reaction element of 2G in the context of the game--if 2G, then all are G. Equally valid would be:


1G
2G +
3G

Thanks!

[ellenb]

Which will be a bit strange to say if I have 1 G than I have 3 G, 1G-->3G?

[Dave Killoran]

Strange and dangerous, since that--in isolation--is not necessarily the case It's only the case when you have 2G. This is why the relationship is represented as it is the book.

Thanks!

[DlarehAtsok]

How would you classify this game, pattern or grouping?