Setup and Rule Diagrams

[Administrator]

Please post below with any questions!

[ScottC]

Hello,

This game appears to be quite different from the usual game types, and I am unsure how to set up the game to attack the individual questions successfully. Apologies in advance if this is in fact a normal game type...I am just not seeing it. Could you all please post an explanation of how to set this game up?

Thank you very much for your help.

[Kristina Moen]

Hi Scott,

You are not alone. This was an unusual game. It is essentially a Pattern Game where Numerical Distribution is important. Your base is going to be the real estate companies (R,S,T) and your moving variables are the buildings (G,Y,Z,F,L,K,M,O). Each building is classed as 1, 2, or 3. You can trade a Class 1 for two Class 2s and a Class 2 for two Class 3s. You can think of it like this: Each building is worth a certain amount of money and you can only do even trades. You can imagine that a Class 1 is worth $1, a Class 2 is worth 50 cents, and a Class 3 is worth a quarter. You can trade a dollar for two 50-cent pieces, like you are making change! But after the trade, you still have the same amount of money, just in a different form.

So if you identify that each real estate company holds $1.50, that will help you with this game. Then you only need to count up the value of the buildings to make sure it's always $1.50.

A different way to think about this game is to identify that the real estate companies will always have an unfixed distribution of either (1) 1-3-3 / 1-2 / 2-2-2 (which is the original distribution and can move around), or (2) 2-2-3-3 / 1-2 / 1-2. No other groups are possible.

We will post a more detailed explanation soon! Hope this helps clarify the game setup for now.

[MBG13]

I took the December test and I didn't have time to try it, but I wish I would have had time because I just tried it and it was very doable.

So the first thing that I did was write down the current match up.

R = G1, Y3, Z3
S = F1, L2
T = K2, M2, O2

Then I went to the rules.

Rule 1: X X (E.G. 1 can be traded for 1).
Rule 2: B1 B2 B2
Rule 3: B2 B3 B3

First, let me explain why I wrote an E.g., next to the first rule, I thought that I might confuse myself or forget how to apply it if I didn't have an example. I guess I could have also written down 2 can be traded for 2, but I didn't want to waste too much time.

Then, before I got to the questions, I played around with a couple of trades. This might seem like a waste of time and it probably is for some people, but I'm a visual person -- I have to see how things work (or don't work) on paper. Its clearer for me. It only took two trades for me to figure out how to play this game. Also, it made me realize that S can't get R's Class 3 buildings unless it trades its F1 building for two of T's class 2 buildings.

Anyway, I hope this helps until PS comes up with their diagrams. PS diagrams are usually better than mine...lol.. so hopefully I didn't confuse anyone.

[Adam Tyson]

Looks pretty good, MBG, and your approach of trying a few trades to get a feel for it is wise. One issue I have is your inference about S not being able to get the 3s from R without first making another trade. If S has a Class 2 building (L), he can just trade that for the two Class 3s, right? Careful about those unwarranted inferences!

Nice job, keep up the good work!

[Jon Denning]

Since this is a Pattern game there isn't much of a setup to speak of, however it may help any readers out there still struggling with this to think of the buildings in terms of value almost like currency. This is how I approached the game:

Class 1 buildings are worth a dollar

Class 2 buildings are worth 50 cents

Class 3 buildings are worth 25 cents

The companies each start out with these value amounts then:

RealProp: $1 + $0.25 + $0.25 = $1.50

Southco: $1 + $0.50 = $1.50

Trustcorp: $0.50 + $0.50 + $0.50 = $1.50

As they trade they can never make or lose money, meaning their ending balance must always be $1.50. That idea not only makes the trading patterns more concrete, but it also quickly reveals the numerical distribution limitations, as there only so many ways to get a total of $1.50!

So we look at a question like #20, do some fast counting, and see that answer choice (A) would leave RealProp with two class 1 buildings for a total of $2. That can't happen! The four other answers? Each adds to $1.50, as it has to.

Give this game another try with that notion in mind and I suspect you'll find it a great deal easier

[tizwvu34]

This game is super easy once you think about it in the .25, .50, 1.00 terms. What if you were not savvy enough to think of this, or how can one become more attune to seeing something like this?

[Adam Tyson]

You're unlikely to see a game quite like this again any time soon, tizwvu34, at least regarding the strategy Jon shared (and I used $1, $2, and $4, just to avoid decimals or fractions). That said, the key, in my opinion, is that the rules establish that there are certain things that are equal to each other. A Class 1 is equal to two Class 2s, etc. Seeing that equivalence immediately made me think of numeric relationships, like in a numbers and percentages question in Logical Reasoning, and those are frequently best solved by supplying numbers. For example, in an LR stimulus where I read that 25% of the cars sold by Company X are sedans, I immediately imagine that Company X sold 100 cars, 25 of which were sedans. Supplying numbers helps me to manage those numeric relationships in a real and meaningful way.

In the same way, applying values to the various buildings here simplifies my understanding of the relationships. All trades are for equal value, and everyone starts with equal value, so everyone will always maintain exactly that value!

If you should find yourself facing another game down the road that brings up a numerical or proportional relationship of some sort, try supplying some simple numeric values to see if it helps you to get your head around it. Like I said, I don't think you will see exactly this "trick" again any time soon, especially since the test makers at LSAC know that we cracked this nut and anyone who studies this game will never again be fooled by it, but they still might find another way to introduce numeric relationships.

One last thought, and it's related - we have seen over time many, many grouping games that included rules such as "Group 2 has twice as many members as Group 1". In the same way as we supplied numbers in the form of dollar values in this game here, we would approach this kind of grouping game rule by supplying some numbers. What if Group 1 has 1 member? What if it has 2? Etc. In that way we will create certain numeric distributions that may or may not lead to creating templates in the game. Numeric ideas are all over games, and so you should always look for ways to manage those numeric relationships.

[medialaw111516]

Ok, this game was so confusing to me that I completely skipped it until I read the tip about trying it with .25, .50, and 1.00, then it took me maybe 5 minutes, but that's an idea I would have never come up with on my own, so how did you see that when looking at this game? Also, are there others like this that I can practice?

[KelseyWoods]

Hi medialaw111516!

I'm going to refer you to Adam's post just above because he actually already did a really great and thorough job of answering a question that was basically the same as yours. I can't say it any better than he did so I'm not going to try to reinvent the wheel And if you've read his response and have more specific questions about it, let us know!

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey