Setup and Rule Diagrams

[Dave Killoran]

Setup and Rule Diagram Explanation

This is an Advanced Linear: Defined, Balanced Game.

In this Defined, Balanced game there are three variable sets: the four majors, the four nonmajors, and the four laboratory benches. Since the laboratory benches have an inherent sense of order, they should be selected as the base. A diagram similar to the following should be created:

pt26_s98_g1_1.png

The second rule can be somewhat confusing. “Lower-numbered” means that one number is less than another; for example, 2 is less than 3. Do not confuse the meaning of this rule with ranking-type games where 1 is ranked higher than 2, etc. (games like this do occur on the LSAT). When the rule discusses “lower-numbered” or “higher-numbered” elements, it means actual numerical value and 1 is always lower than 2, 2 is always lower than 3, 3 is always lower than 4, and so on. Thus the rule is properly diagrammed as an FJ block. Applying the basic principle of linkage to the second and third rules produces the VFJ super-block. This super block is clearly one of the keys to the game since it has a limited number of placement options.

In fact, the game is made somewhat easier by the fact that there are only two “active” formations to track: the VFJ super-block and the GW not-block. The first rule is essentially dead since it is incorporated into the main setup. With only two active rules to consider, you should always be looking to apply them as you attack the questions.

The active rules also allow you to identify two helpful limitations, one involving W and the other involving G:

• Because W cannot be assigned with G, and because F is already assigned to V, either H or J must be assigned with W.

• Because G cannot be assigned with W or V, G must be assigned with X or Y

[hunterama1]

The scenario of this LG does not specify a priority or vertical relationship between the four majors and the four non-majors only that they are being assigned to four laboratory benches numbered 'horizontally' 1-4. Thus in my setup I considered this diagrammatical ordering an arbitrary and placed the four variables of major (FGHJ) on top and the four variables of non-major (VWXY) on the bottom. This presented me with an 'upside down' block FJV with V under J compared to the LGB diagram. I figured this wouldn't really matter except that looking a bit closer, LGB has the variables listed out with 'major' on top and 'nonmajor' on the bottom as is how the scenario presents them (fghj4 and vwxy4) but then in your diagram you suddenly flipped that ordering for the diagrammatical 'slots' (now Nonmajor on top and Major on bottom) with no explanation whatever as to why. The same 'flip' was done for the not block rule W/G relative to the variable list consistent with the given scenario. The only clue into this insight by the LGB diagram writer is at rule 2 which states that "Frank and Joan are assigned to consecutively numbered benches, with Frank assigned to the lower numbered bench". But again, this 'lower-numbered' bench just forces F to be before (or left of) J. I've seen this unexplained 'flipping' of the vertical variable slots relative to the variable listing without explanation a couple of times hence in LGB. Perhaps in a new edition some light can be shed on the reasoning behind why these apparantly arbitrary reversals of order have been carried out slot-wise. But in any case, please explain what part of the rule or scenario caused the LGB diagrammer to choose this reversed ordering which seems to me to be otherwise arbitrary as it has left me scratching my head. Thanks in advance.

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Hunter,

In referring to the LGB diagrammer, you're actually referring to me, and I'm always happy to answer questions about the reasoning behind any representation in the book.

Let me do my best to sift through your questions here, but if I missed any questions or misunderstand anything, please let me know.

First, it is irrelevant as to whether the majors or non-majors are top or bottom. Clearly, there are stacks for each, so one of them has to be on top, but putting the majors on top as you did is equally valid. When the game presents no direct reason for placing one stack "higher" than another (such as there is not distinct order, as is the case here, vertically speaking), the choice is yours and then the blocks should just follow that placement (and this happens elsewhere too--for example, AM or PM stacks could be top or bottom in other games, and so on).

Second, you mention that "but then in your diagram you suddenly flipped that ordering for the diagrammatical 'slots' (now Nonmajor on top and Major on bottom) with no explanation whatever as to why." I'm not certain exactly what you are talking about here. In the diagrams on pages 148-151, the non-major stack is consistently on top, and the major stack is consistently on the bottom. the non-majors are V, W, X, and Y, and the majors are F, G, H, and J. Thus, in any representation featuring members of both groups, the non-majors should be on top in our diagrams, and in every diagram in the explanation, that is the case. So, I don''t see the "flipping" you are referring to. Could it be that perhaps you confused the major and non-major variable sets and had them reversed?

Third, you mention that "I've seen this unexplained 'flipping' of the vertical variable slots relative to the variable listing without explanation a couple of times hence in LGB." Could you perhaps please point out where you've seen that previously ? I ask because I'm pretty fanatical about wanting to represent rules such as blocks in the exact manner in which they would be placed on the diagram, and I'm not aware of any situation where I would have allowed such flipping to occur (I'd be mad about it too, if it happened ).

Finally, perhaps you are referring to the listing of variables at the header of the game and then its relation to the stacks (after looking at this for a while, this is my best guess as to what you are referring to)? That's just a listing of the variables, and often when LSAC gives variables in an order I'll reflect that in the variable representation (majors first then non-majors here), and then present the first set as the bottom stack (in this case, majors). Note though, that this doesn't change the fact that the blocks perfectly match the stacking of the sets--and that's a key issue as far as usability. My apologies if this confused you, and I'm happy to note that in the next edition, which will be coming out just after the New Years.

Again, if I've misunderstood something in your question, my apologies, and please feel free to let me know. Thanks!

[hunterama1]

Hi Mr. Killoran,

Yes, pardon my lack of clarity, but your answer in the last paragraph was what I was asking. The 'flipping' I was referring to is related to the diagram compared to the header listing. As being a tyro still (unfortunately), I pay attention to every detail of the explanation given. And reversing the 'logical order' relative to the 'flow' of the header compared to the diagram just below I found confusing as my blocks, etc., well- just didn't match yours! In contrast to this, Sept 1998 game we're discussing, in the very next diagram -the Dec 2006 game, your header is consistent 'flow-wise' with the diagram which makes things just a bit more logical to follow as opposed to what you mentioned in your post of 'often using the bottom listing as the top row for the diagram'. In this diagram the top header listing was also the top row of the diagram.

Thanks for taking the time on Thanksgiving.

By the way - if you are aware of any Powerscore tutors in my area of Baton Rouge, LA I am looking. Cheers.

[hunterama1]

By the way - the following 08/22/2012 article entitled: "Intense prep for law school admission test alters brain structure" may be of some interest to you.

http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/08/ ... structure/

I discovered the above after reading a 4/22/2012 NY Times article discussing N-Back training, increased IQ, and the LSAT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/magaz ... wanted=all

[Dave Killoran]

Alright, got it. I'm currently revising significant sections of the LGB, so I'll look at that as I go through each game

I'll check with Tutoring about Baton Rouge and see what they have.

Also, yes, I saw those articles before and read them with great interest. They aren't definitive, but anecdotally, one would suspect that studying logical formations and rigorous analysis would have an impact. I'd love to see more studies in that arena.

Thanks!