Setup and Rule Diagrams

[BethRibet]

Hi eober,

The question you're asking is partly stylistic. Lucas shared his basic approach, but as long as your diagrams are logically correct (which they are!), then you could tackle this in the way that you did.

One benefit to proceeding as Lucas did is that Pr connects to two necessary conditions (Ks + Os), whereas if you start with Ls, you can still put it all together, but it won't be quite as straightforward.

Hope that helps!
Beth

[kan1dice]

Hi, when I first attempted this game I was afraid that I was making false inferences and mistaken reversals, so I missed an inference or two. When I read Nikki's response I kind of kicked myself because I should have continued my inferences instead of stopping short. For instance, my inference: N(r)-->O(r)-->J(s)-->K(r)
Correct inference: N(r)-->O(r)-->J(s)-->K(r)-->P(s)

I kept thinking, Two-Value System but wait Mistaken Reversal? Everyone was right by the way this game was incredibly annoying, only because you're against the clock and then second guessing yourself. Plus it is entirely too easy to get mixed up and confused (at least for me).

In the process of a game like this, do you write the rules and then go straight in to the templates? I feel like I cheated because I used my inferences and contrapositives. Also what is the average time this should take?

[Adam Tyson]

As you've seen in this discussion, there's more than one way to skin this cat. For Dave and others, it was all about the templates, and I think that's a great way to go. If you recognize that O is the controlling variable (once you have made the crucial inference about L, that is), templates around O make great sense.

On the other hand, setting up the conditional chains may be all you need to do, and that was my preferred approach originally (I haven't looked at this game in a while, and have become more and more enamored of templates in recent years, so I might take Dave's route nowadays). That's not "cheating" - that's using the tools you have in the best or most comfortable way you know how to use them, and if that works for you then nobody can claim you are doing it wrong. Did your approach work (as it did for me)? If so, winner winner chicken dinner and call it a good day, my friend!

How much time should it take? As much, or as little, time as it takes for YOU to get it done right. Some folks may blow through it in 4 minutes, others may take 9 or more - everyone has to work at their own pace, and the important thing is not speed but accuracy. As you improve your accuracy, you will gain confidence and your speed will naturally come along too. Never set yourself a fixed deadline and never rush on this test. Remember, it's not about how fast you go or how many questions you answer - it's about how many you answer CORRECTLY! I'd rather do two games, get them perfect, and guess on the rest (getting two more right, perhaps - let's say that's 14 correct answers) than I would like to answer all 24 and get only 10 right. Wouldn't you?

[kan1dice]

I used my rules and inferences initially and this approach worked, however I was worried because it took me too long. I used the template method after Dave suggested it and found it helpful but I used my inferences to make the templates and to check them for accuracy. I wasn't sure how to attempt the templates without them. I guess I have to practice using templates more to gain a better understanding of how and when would be the most appropriate time to apply them. I usually can finish a game with 100%-90% accuracy but that is only when I have had the time to think and fully understand the rules. It is the same way with logical reasoning. I can get the question right but it my thinking process, I feel like it's too slow. I know you're right about accuracy over speed but I still get frustrated. I feel like I may have to reconsider taking the September LSAT.

[adlindsey]

I missed most of the questions of this game and tried working it several times before coming here. I didn't see the restriction of L can only be in R. I'm not sure if I've seen a rule like this before. I haven't reworked the game with this in mind. But I was wondering what's the purpose of this rule (Ls Nr + Pr)? Are there any other implications of it?

[Adam Tyson]

Nope! Because this rule ends up causing a paradox, it leads only to the inference that the sufficient condition (L in Group S) can never happen. Once we learn that, this rule can essentially be ignored for the remainder of the game, as it will never be triggered and gives us no other useful information. Stick L in Group R, and throw away that rule, never to be heard from again!

[adlindsey]

Ok thanks! I'm assuming this is a rare instance of a rule like this. How often does something like this come up? And are these paradox rules just limited to grouping games?

[Kristina Moen]

Hi adlindsey,

The purpose of the rule (Ls Nr + Pr) is that you can then infer that L has to be in Group R. If you did not have that rule, you could not infer that L had to be in Group R. Let's look again at the last two rules.

If N is at Group R, then O must be at Group R.
If P is at Group R, then O must be at Group S.

This means that N and P can never both be at Group R. When two conditions have opposite necessary conditions, they can never happen at the same time. Take this example: John needs a temperature of 85 degrees to sleep. Sally needs a temperature of 65 degrees to sleep. It can never be both 85 degrees and 65 degrees at the same time, which means John and Sally will never be sleeping at the same time. (Marriages have fallen apart over less! )

So per the rules, if L is at Group S, then N and P must be at Group S, which can never ever happen because they have opposite necessary conditions. So the necessary condition for L to be at Group S can never be met. So this rule leads you to the inference that L is never at Group S and thus must be at Group R.

The reason Adam is telling you to ignore the rule is that once you've made that inference, you do not need to think about the rule again. You can rely on your inference that L is in Group R for the rest of the game. The rule is still very much in play, otherwise you could not make the inference that L is in Group R! This is not uncommon at all! You've basically just combined rules. You could see this in any game type.

[mankariousc]

Hello!

This game was extremely difficult for me. I think I made all the correct inferences and linkages, but I couldn't form proper templates out of them.

The inferences I made were as follows:

N r --> O s --> J s -- K r --> P s
P r --> K s --> J r --> K s --> P r

K s --> J r --> O s --> N s --> L r
L s --> N r --> O r --> J s --> K r

Are these correct? Am I missing anything?

After that, how would I go about forming templates? Are templates even the right approach for this particular game? When I tried to form templates it seemed that I was still missing information seeing as each of my inferences only addresses 5 variables. I was confused where I should add the 6th, non-included variable because I didn't know if that would mess up the rest of the link that I had created.

Thank you so much in advance for all your help!

[Kristina Moen]

Mankariousc,

Let me start from the beginning for anyone else reading this thread. This is a grouping game. We start with 6 variables (JKLNOP) that will go into 2 groups (S and R).

I'll write out the rules first, then we'll make inferences (link the rules):
Js Kr
Jr Os
Ls Nr + Pr
Nr Or
Pr Ks + Os

What makes this game great for Identifying the Possibilities is that there are two paths presented to us from the very beginning. J is at Souderton or J is at Randsborough. Let's explore what happens!

Js Kr Ps (contrapositive of last rule) Lr (contrapositive of 3rd rule)
Jr Os Ns (contrapositive of 4th rule) Lr (contrapositive of 3rd rule)

So what we get are two possibilities:
Possibility #1
S: JP
R: KL
w/ N&O being floaters (watch the 4th rule!)

Possibility #2
S: ON
R: JL
w/ K&P being floaters (watch the last rule though!)

There may be an inference I've missed (remember, you don't have to make EVERY possible inference to start the questions), but this would be my basic setup! When you have a non-linked variable, you can just put it to the side of your chain with an asterisk to indicate that it is a random (i.e. can go anywhere).