Setup and Rule Diagrams

[nutcracker]

Hi! Could someone please provide a complete setup guide on this game? The way you guys do it (lining the cities up horizontally) looks interesting but I have a hard time using it effectively. What do you think about putting the five cities in a circle and drawing lines to show connection? Is there any particular reason behind your not choosing this method? Thanks a lot!

[Shannon Parker]

The fact that cities are lined up horizontally is just a convenience. In my opinion there is no logical effect to it. That being said, i am not sure how you would be able to effectively put the cities into a circle and keep track of the rules. The horizontal layout provided in the picture above demonstrates the most efficient way to keep track of the variables by placing not rules below the cities and possibilities above. Although different people think differently, this is the setup that is most likely to work the best.

[Claire Horan]

Hi nutcracker,

I don't see how drawing the cities in a circle will change the ease of making inferences, which is the main purpose of diagramming. For me personally, drawing the diagram in a circle would also make it more difficult to read, so I recommend using Powerscore's diagram and tweaking it slightly to make it easier for you. (For example, one way that I routinely differ from the Powerscore diagram is that I like to draw dotted lines for slots that might be filled and solid lines for ones that must be filled.)

The best way for you to determine whether a particular diagram will work for you is to try it and see empirically if it is successful or not at getting you to the correct answers in a timely manner. Powerscore's recommended diagrams are a good starting point because they've been used with a large number of students, but you are always free to try out your own diagramming techniques. No harm in trying something once on a practice question. However, when you go into Test Day, make sure you have made decisions about the diagramming conventions you will be using so you don't waste time making these decisions during the test.

[leelee]

Hi PowerScore!

I made it all the way to the last question of this game but now I am stuck! Question 17: "If four of the cities are each connected with the remaining city, then the cities in which one of the following pairs must be connected with each other?" What is this question asking? Each city listed is a city that could be connected to the 4 others? or both cities are hypothetically connected when one city is connected to the 4? And does the order of the cities in the answer choice matter? I have gone back and fourth and can't figure it out. I have probably just been looking at it too long but I need help!

I have read the explanation and I am also confused about the elimination of all oft he cities somehow leading to the correct answer.

Thanks so much for your help!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi leelee,

Start just from the local condition in the question stem (the phrase up to the comma): if four of the cities are each connected with the remaining city, that means the "remaining city" has to be a city that can be (and will be, for the question!) connected to all of the other four cities. In other words, the question stem wants you to start by finding a city that can have all the other four cities connected to it, and go from there. So let's begin there, and find a city that actually can be connected to all the other four cities.

1. Start with Honolulu: Honolulu can't be connected to Toronto, so it can't be connected to all four other cities.
2. Next think about Montreal: Montreal can't be connected to all four other cities. It can only be connected to one city, from the first rule.
3. Now think about Philadelphia: if you tried to connect Philadelphia to all four other cities, you'd run into an impossibility. Because as soon as you connect Philadelphia to Toronto, you can't connect it to Vancouver.
4. What about Toronto? It can't be connected to Honolulu, so it can't be connected to all four other cities.

This means the only city that can possibly be connected to all four other cities is Vancouver. So, for purposes of the question, Vancouver will be connected to H, M, P, and T.

That makes answer choice C the correct answer: Vancouver must be connected to Honolulu (because it must be connected to all the cities!).

There's no need to think about order in this game, because it's just a grouping game, figuring out for each city what the list of other cities it's connected to looks like.

Let me know if that clears things up!

[vangorgc]

Hi everybody -
Can someone explain why M cannot be connected to T? I get why it can't be attached to H (since that would require T as well, and M can only have one) but haven't quite seen why T couldn't be connected. This is snowballing my overall understanding of the game with the P/V option for M
Thanks,
Grace

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Grace!

M can be connected to T! Exactly as you noted, H cannot be connected with M because then T would also have to be connected with M and M can only be connected to one city. But there is not reason why M cannot be connected to T.

The P/V above T does not indicate that those are the only options for T. T could still also be connected to M as well. It's just that T has to be connected to P or V, since the only options for H are P and V and T has to be connected to whatever H is connected to. So that P/V notation is a minimum of what must happen. H must be connected to at least one of P and V, which means that T must be connected to at least one of P and V. Could H be connected to both P and V? Sure. Could T be connected to P, V, and M or just P and M or just V and M? Absolutely! We know that T cannot only be connected to M, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be connected to M in addition to being connected to P/V.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[jessjray]

I used the cities as the base in my initial set-up (as you describe), but ended up getting terribly confused with the double representation of the connections. Admittedly, my representation of the rules wasn't nearly as good as your example. For my second attempt, before checking here, I decided to create all the possible connections and mark the rules on the list of connections. So it was something like this...

HM (not), HP, HT (not), HV
MP, MT, MV (Only 1)
PT PV (Only 1)
TV

And then the rules to the side (or could have been arrows above):
HP --> PT --> NOT PV
HV --> TV

For me, I think this was easier and faster than using the horizontal set-up because it was so easier to translate the correct choice to the answer choices. It also made the last two questions easy to see. (Max 5 flights, and V as the only option for all other cities to be connected to) But is there anything I'm missing as to why I should stick to the recommended set-up? I'm wondering if the only reason I thought to do it this way was because I was already familiar with the questions.

[KelseyWoods]

Hi jessjray!

It looks like your diagram includes all of the rules and major inferences for the game and it worked for you--so that's great! But, as you point out, I do wonder if you would have thought to set it up this way without already being familiar with the game. Ultimately, that's a question we'll never be able to answer. It's important to have a consistent way of approaching games so that you are able to set them up quickly and read your diagram efficiently. But it you come across a weird game and you end up having a different way of setting it up that gets you all the inferences and works well in terms of accuracy and timing, then that's totally fine. As much as it's important to be consistent with your approach on the LSAT, it's also important to be flexible! The important thing is that your setup allows you to make the key inferences and get through the game efficiently. It sounds like this setup did that for you so good job!

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelyse

[g_lawyered]

Hi P.S.,
I have a question following up to Lathlee posted question. The inference made from Rule 3 (that M can't connected to H because that would mean M needs to be connected to T- which would break rule 1) can the inference lead to a Not-Law inference that M can't be in T?
I understand the inference that because M can't be connected to H, H can't be connected to M either. But my question is what about M connected to T? Because in Question 11 correct answer (answer choice A) has M connected to T. This is where understanding the rules is confusing to me.

Thanks in advance!