Setup and Rule Diagrams

[AthenaDalton]

Hi there,

I was wondering if you could help clarify the best route to setting up this game and making sketches on the local "if" questions. I drew out two sets of four lines __ __ __ __
__ __ __ __ and tried to allocate the co-pilots and the pilots, but it is confusing given the fact that (max) only three planes fly and that multiple pilots/co-pilots could fly on single planes. Is there a better way to set this game up to account for that uncertainty?

Thanks for your help!

Thanks for your question! Your approach sounds like a good one. Here's how I set up the diagrams for local questions:

Top Row: Pilots: __ __ __ __
Bottom Row: Co-Pilots: __ __ __ __

Underneath each of the four rows, I wrote plane numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4. I noted that D must be in either Plane 2 or 3, as indicated by "D/". I made the same notation for Pilot A in Planes 1 and 4. If helpful, you can note to the side of the Pilot row that the only available pilots are A, B, and C and note next to the co-pilot row that the available co-pilots are D, E and F.

It's a very bare bones setup! The advantage of setting this up in a double-stacked fashion is that you can pretty quickly determine which plane won't fly and start making inferences from there.

For example, in question 20 we are told that Anna is in Plane 4 and Dave is in Plane 2. So we already know that Planes 2 and 4 are flying, plus one more. To find an answer choice that must be true, we just need to determine an assignment of a pilot or co-pilot to either Plane 1 or 3 to determine which flies. Answer choice (B) narrows the choices down for us: as soon as Cindy gets assigned to Plane 3, we can conclude that only Planes 2, 3 and 4 are flying in the show. From there, we can conclude (by process of elimination) that since Pilot B is flying Plane 3 and Pilot A is flying Plane 4, Pilot C must fly Plane 2.

Logic games that have bare-bones setups require more inferences at the individual question level.

Keep up the good work!

[lathlee]

Hi. I read prior comment of how the solver supposed to assume one pilot can drive only one plane in this game. But the explanation provided by the staff seems way too weak for me to assume the relationships of one pilot equals only one plane rule. I just did this questions for 2nd time and killrd me again for that reason. Can any staff explain better to me plz?

[Claire Horan]

Hi Lathlee,

The game scenario says the pilots "are all aboard planes that are flying in the show" and that "no plane flies in the show without a qualified pilot aboard." So, any plane that does not currently have a pilot on it is not flying in the show. In addition, nothing in the scenario, the rules, or the questions suggests that this show has multiple parts or that the pilots are able to switch planes. I understand your not wanting to make unwarranted assumptions, but if the pilots were able to move planes I don't see that the questions asked would make much sense.

You mentioned having a difficult time with the questions. Which ones, specifically, and what was your difficulty?

Thanks!

[stephaniemaui]

. From LSAC's perspective, they'd argue that the phrase "that are flying in the show" in the first two rules, and the lack of linear rules or limitations, is supposed to indicate that this isn't set up in an ordered fashion but as a single event where everyone flies in only one plane.

Sorry to bring this issue back up 6 years later but could someone please clarify?

Is it reasonable for me to assume for future games like this, that if it is not linear I assume its a single event and there is no repeat of the distribution of variables?

This did kill me in this game, I assumed that the pilots could get in another plane and that all the planes were not in the air at the same time! Do not wanna make this mistake again, so I am looking for a rule or something tangible I can put my faith on!

Thanks

[Paul Marsh]

Hi Stephanie!

I can understand why someone might think that the planes could be flown at different times; the game isn't super clear about explicitly ruling out that possibility. So how can you avoid making that mistake on a future question?

First, I want to echo what Dave said - the test-makers would likely be clearer if this question were written today. This game is nearly 30 years old; in my experience today's games are more explicit in how they are supposed to be set up.

But if you do find yourself in a situation where you're confused, let the rules be your guide. If the rules all relate to Grouping game rules (like the rules do here, e.g. A and D don't fly together), then that clues you in that this is likely just a grouping game. Whereas if some of the rules relate to Grouping while others are Linear in nature (e.g. Plane 3 flies before Plane 1) then you know you're dealing with a more complex setup. Just take what the setup and the rules give you; if a Linear or Grouping element isn't explicitly present from the setup or the rules, don't go looking for one. These games can be complicated enough as it is! Hope that helps.

[emilym]

Hello,

Do all of the copilots need to be used?

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Emily,

Yes, they do all need to be used! That's because the rule says "Copilots Dave, Ed, and Fran are all aboard planes that are flying in the show." Since they are all aboard, they all will show up on some plane in every solution.

Let us know if you have any other questions about this game--thanks!

Jeremy

[bella243]

Could someone please explain to me how it is possible that no copilots are possible on any given plane. Is that because all we know is that D (copilot) is in either plane 2 or 3, and that the copilots E F could be on any other plane that is flying (and we don't know which other plane could be flying along with a plane considered in a particular question, and 2-3 planes could fly in the show)? There is so much uncertainty in the game and I found this phrase to add more confusion that clarity: "Pilots and copilots are all aboard planes that are flying in the show"

[Adam Tyson]

The rules here do not require all the planes to be flying, and in fact that turns out to be impossible because there are only three pilots and any plane flying must have a pilot on board. Also, the rules never require that each flying plane have a copilot - only a pilot is required. So it is possible, for example, that plane 1 has A flying all alone, plane 2 has B flying all alone, and plane 3 has CDEF all on board. Plane 4 would be grounded, not flying, and no rules would be broken with this solution. Everyone is aboard a plane, and every flying plane has a pilot.

The biggest problem with this game is that we tend to make assumptions that are not warranted by the rules. Something similar happens with Game 4 in PT 67, October 2012, the game with zones and subzones - test-takers make assumptions about the sizes of the groups that are not in the rules. Stick the rules themselves, and don't make any assumptions! In fact, it might be good to think a little like a troublemaking rebel and see if you can push against the rules as hard as you can, saying to the game "oh yeah, well what if I do THIS? You never said I couldn't do that, did you?" Push back against the rules as far as you can to understand the limits of the game, and you are likely to have a better grasp of the game and be better prepared for some challenging questions that test those limits.

[FernGully]

I didn't see a clue to infer whether there was a sequence in which the planes flew or whether they flew at the same time, and that was my main confusion. Because of that confusion, it led me to think a pilot could fly multiple planes, such as Anna possibly flying planes 1 and 4, and therefore, I was completely lost.

Any insight as to notice this was strictly a grouping game versus a sequencing and grouping game?