Setup and Rule Diagrams

[Adam Tyson]

Looks like your approach was the same as Ladan's explanation in this thread, akalsi, so I would say you did just fine! Nice job!

[Curtis1992]

Hello Powerscore,

I just recently took the October 1993 LSAT and I am having some issues with reviewing game 3 (questions 14-18). When I took the exam in the real test format, I completely diagrammed most of the rules and the game wrong. Moreover, could someone diagram the game out so I can reason through it all? Below is what I thought the game should be setup as

B:KLM-3
G:RST-3

RULE ONE-K
S 1,2

RULE TWO-? ?
R-2 S-3










1 2 3

[Curtis1992]

Hello Powerscore,

A few days back I posted about a setup for the questions 14-18 for the October 1993 logic game. Could get a setup so I can review that section.

thank you

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi Curtis,

If you look at the earlier posts on this page, Ladan Soleimani already posted a diagram for one scenario. That included a great way of diagramming the first rule. Discussing how to represent the first two rules, she writes the following:

start with K with S in 1 or 2 and then just pick either L or M as the person with R in 2 and S in 3 instead of writing them as dual options. So writing out K with S in 1 and picking L as the person in the second rule who is with R in 2 and S in 3 would start like this:
R __ L __
S K __ L
T __ __ __

That diagram represents one possible scenario very well. If you are looking for a diagram without the additional inferences, I would start with something similar to this:

R __ __ .....__
S __ __ __
T __ __ __
D1 .....D2 .....D3

With start with showing the three dances of the recital, labeled D1, D2, and D3 in my diagram. We can then provide three vertically spaced rows to identify which boy dances with which girl. For example, if we wanted to show that Rita dances with Miguel on dance 1, and then with Luis on dance 2, we would fill the diagram in in the following way:

R M L __
S __ __ __
T __ __ __
D1 .....D2 .....D3


Representing the rules by themselves is somewhat tricky, but I think that Ladan did a good job of showing a clear way of showing them as different possible templates. Make sure to read over the earlier posts and let us know if you still have questions about the diagram for this game!

[AlexaCrusinberry]

Hello!
I too struggled A LOT with this question but as others have posted the inference that whoever dances with Sarah in dance 3 must also dance with Tura in Dance 1. Why?

There is not a "could be" or "maybe" this is 100% absolutely going to affect your answer.
Here is the "why" and someone can correct me if my thinking is wrong.

If we know that Sarah dances with Luis in dance 3 and we also know that whoever Rita dances with in Dance two HAS to dance with Sarah in dance 3 then we know for a fact that Rita dances with Luis in dance 2.

So, Luis has already danced with Rita (dance 2) and Sarah (dance 3).
Note that the rule says that no two children can partner with each other in more than one dance.

This is where the inference comes in and is critical: Luis can NOT dance with anybody except Tura in Dance 1.
If that is the case, then that also means that we know for a fact Miguel is NOT dancing with Tura in Dance 1.
So who is Miguel dancing with? We only have 3 options here, Rita, Sarah, Tura
Tura is taken, so that leaves us with the options of Sarah or Rita

Correct answer is D: Rita, Sarah

[AlexaCrusinberry]

Hello PS crew,

I have the exact same inquiry but still cannot wrap my head around why each boy and girl need to do each dance. Depending on what type of dance, but if a boy - say Karl - dances with Rita, Sarah and Tura for dance one, doesn't that also constitute three pairs of children, in which case neither Luis and Miguel are dancing? Please help!

*Edit: Essentially my question is why should I assume that each child-pair is dancing simultaneously in the one dance?

I assumed that they were dancing separately.
The question lays this out by defining what a pair constitutes.
The conditions say that three pairs of children are "involved" and that a boy and a girl partnering each-other in each pair.

That is saying that a boy and a girl equal 1 pair so to make three pairs we would need two more sets that consist of a boy, and a girl.

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Alexa, good work! Seems like you're on the right track to figuring out this VERY challenging game!

[Dave Killoran]

This afternoon I received the following question:

There is one thing that is killing me, if you don’t have time to answer i completely understand but figured id give it a shot. The dance recital game, I do not fully understand the major inference based on the 2nd and 3rd rules. I get that no two pairs can be partnered in more than one dance, but why can’t one student partner with two different people in the same dance? There is nothing in the scenario or rules that make it clear that each person must participate in every dance. Therefore couldn’t you have a situation where say M partners with R in dance 2, S in dance 3, and T in dance 2 as well without violating any of the given information?

Let's address the question about one person pairing up with two partners in a single dance since that makes the inference easier to understand. These scenario sentences are what LSAC intends to make that impossible: "Three dances -- 1, 2, and 3 -- are to be performed. Each dance involves three pairs of children, a boy and a girl partnering each other in each pair." Since it's a recital with three dances, each "dance" is a single performance of all six children. If one person were to pair up with two people, that wouldn't be a "single" dance in their eyes. Secondarily, if you were to open up the game in that fashion, none of the answers would be correct, because each child could dance with multiple people each time; the game would have too many possibilities (this is the reverse engineering way of knowing what they intended).

By the way, more on that inference can be found at: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=401.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[JD180]

Hey sonnenstrahl,

Thanks for the question, and welcome to the Forum!

I think here we can presume that, because of the real-world nature of how dances occur and because we're told "each dance involves three sets of children," we can know that, say, dance 1 involves all six at once with three simultaneous pairs. That means that for each dance all three boys and all three girls are partnered with one another, and no boy could dance with two girls while someone else is left out.

What's encouraging here is that you're looking to test the limits of what could occur, and that's a key idea for a number of games. Just don't go beyond the reality of a situation that has physical implications (in the same way that someone visiting cities couldn't be in two different places at once).

I hope that helps!

As you said, a little presumptuous.

In the real world, if you've ever participated competitively in waltz, it goes both ways. Dance 1 could contain 3 consecutive dancing pairs, or 3 simultaneously dancing pairs.

Your response here is a huge sigh of relief. I really wasn't missing anything!

You don't have to apologize about your reddit post. Would have been nice if you acknowledged the presumption there though rather than expending so much cognitive overhead critiquing my intentions and impugning my motives.

[Jon Denning]

To this game's wording (and hopefully to anyone reading's relief!): this game is a bit reminiscent of early 90s ambiguity on LSAC's part, more so in LR questions/answers but also now and then in LG. By that I mean games of more modern times, and certainly those going forward, are more carefully worded so as to largely/entirely avoid this sort of misinterpretation and confusion.

That's not to say older games should be disregarded, of course, but I always run through them with something of a weathered eye, if that makes sense.

And I'll echo the sentiment I expressed previously: a constant consideration of limitations and possibilities is a valuable trait and will serve any test taker well, particularly when coupled with a desire to see what the test makers intend in their constructions. So celebrate the fact that they've gotten more precise over time, but always still try to interpret any/all scenarios through the writer's most probable intent