Setup and Rule Diagrams

[Dave Killoran]

Setup and Rule Diagram Explanation

This is a Grouping: Defined-Fixed, Balanced, Identify the Templates game.

The game scenario creates a classic Grouping scenario where seven applicants are hired for positions in three different departments:

pt38_o02_g3_1.png

The fourth rule is the easiest to diagram, and it assigns F to a position in P:

pt38_o02_g3_2.png

The first rule establishes that H and Y are a block:

pt38_o02_g3_3.png

Because H and Y fill two positions, they cannot be assigned to the management department, and must be assigned to either the production or sales department:

pt38_o02_g3_4.png

The second rule establishes a vertical not-block:

pt38_o02_g3_5.png

Consequently, when the fourth rule is considered, G cannot fill a production position and must instead fill a position in management or sales:

pt38_o02_g3_6.png

The third rule is conditional:

pt38_o02_g3_7.png

Combining the previous information, and adding in the fact that I is a random, results in the following diagram:

pt38_o02_g3_8.png

Because of the restrictions resulting from pairing H and Y together (and the implications that result from the other rules), templates can be made based on their placement. The first placement to consider is when H and Y are together in P:

pt38_o02_g3_9.png

Because H and Y in P completely fills the production department, you can apply the contrapositive of the third rule to determine that X cannot fill a position in S. That means that X must go fill the position in M, and the other three variables—W, G, and I—are all hired in S.

The next template possibility involves the placement of H and Y in S. Unfortunately this will not completely fill group S, so more movement is allowed. Because of the additional spaces available to the other variables, a secondary consideration must be applied. In this case, you should look at the next most restricted variable: G. Because G cannot go in group P, create two templates: one template with G in M, and another with G in S.

pt38_o02_g3_10.png

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello

I wanted to make sure that my set up and inferences were right in this game?

M: _ *no H/ Y

P:F_ _ _ *no G

S: _ _ _

3rd rules:

Xs Wp
(+) if not Wp then no Xs

Also for question 19 I did each hypothetical and I thought E would be the correct answer .
my hypothetical was:

M: F
P: W H Y (not x)
S: X G I

Would I use the contra postive of the third rule?

Thankyou
Sarah

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Sarah,

You're missing one key inference. If X is in Sales, then W is in Production; since F is already in Production, that means H and Y have to be in Sales. And Garcia cannot be in Production, so must be in the only other open spot, in Management. Therefore, if X is in Sales, then we have:
M: G
P: FWI
S: XHY

For question 19, the only hypo that works is C, which gives us this:
M: X
P: FHY
S: WIG

E is incorrect because F has to be in Production, and if HWY are in Production, there is no room for F.

[lathlee]

Hi. I just want to make sure of one discrepancy which I was going to report in as a weird finding now you guys, Powerscore, corrected it in the web version.

in the Lesson version of 5-106 question and answer page in 5-136,

Xs Wp

this incorrect version sentence below, contrapositive (In my opinion) : Wp Xs

which I was going to ask you about, but in the web version, this incorrect version of contrapositive is not listed in web explanation.

[Malila Robinson]

Hi Lathlee,
It seems that this has been fixed in the most recent printing of the book, so Wp Xs does not appear in the game explanation (5-156 - 5-160)
Thanks for letting us know about the typo!
-Malila

[lathlee]

BTW, in case if my prior posts hurt Powerscore's business any manner, please delete it. I just wanted to ask about discrepancies. Haha.

[Adam Tyson]

No worries, lathlee, we appreciate it when our students help us correct our typos! Looks like we corrected that one at least as far back as the publication of the 2016 editions of the full length course books. Thanks!

[Mariam]

Hello- I did not create templates in my main diagram, but I see how helpful it would have been. How can I figure out whether or not to draw templates in my diagram? In other words, when should I know to draw templates for a specific game? Thanks

[Christen Hammock]

Hi Mariam!

Knowing when to draw templates is a tricky task that takes time and familiarity with games. I find it most helpful to practice on untimed games. Try picking a couple of rules that most constrain the game, and practice drawing out a couple of diagrams. Sometimes it will be helpful, sometimes not so much. The good news is that playing around with the rules will always tell you more about how the game works and how the rules interact. The more you do, the more you'll pick up on which game rules effectively limit the game and make templates useful.

Christen

[Kelly R]

Hi PS,

Quick question regarding the set-up. As explained on the forum, I used the HY block as the first node of split to create 2 templates. Rather than splitting on the node of G next, though, I split according to the X-->W rule (which resulted in 3 additional templates). When HY is in Production, X must go to M, and then the rest of the template fills itself out. When HY goes to S, though, X can go to S. I accordingly created one template with HYX in S (this was the template where the sufficient condition was satisfied). When the sufficient condition of X in S is not fulfilled though, X can be in Production or Management. I created 2 additional templates to reflect these 2 scenarios (the one in which the sufficient isn't triggered, since these are the only two options for a conditional rule– either the conditional kicks or it doesn't). I breezed through the questions and got them all correct, so seems like my X-->W node of split worked out, but just want to verify that this was an okay move to make. Thanks!