Setup and Rule Diagrams

[Adam Tyson]

I love the template approach to this game, lsatstudying11 , and you can base them on several different splits in the game. Your pairing approach is a good one and lead to three templates that each have 4 variables fixed in place and two that are a little flexible. That's great!

I chose a similar approach the last time I did the game, basing templates on P and N. After drawing out the chains and inferring that L must always be in R, I also saw that putting either P or N in R forces the other one to S, giving three templates:

P in R, N in S
N in R, P in S
P and N both in S

The first two templates in my approach give complete solutions, with only the third one being at all flexible about J, K, and O (and it wouldn't be awful to split that one into two versions based on where J goes).

Nice work! Templates rule!

[glasann]

Hi Dave , I got a bit bogged down in this game so tried templating around the the NO block as you suggested, and it went way more smoothly. However when I read the rules and did my initial diagramming, I did not think about templating this. It didn't really seem like there were as clear "either/or" options as is usual for games that are good template candidates. What exactly tipped you off initially to template this? Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

I can't speak for Dave, glasann, but I can tell you what made me choose to do templates on this game, and that is that there were only two options - two groups - for every variable, and there were many variables that had a big impact on others in some long conditional chains. There is no third hospital, there is no "out" group, just two groups with everything in, and most things influencing at least one other thing. That just screams templates to me!

[hope]

Hi Ray,

All your rules and contrapositives are correct, so good work there! You have also correctly deduced perhaps the most challenging inference in the game, namely that L cannot be at S, and is thus L is always at R.

By the way, my preferred approach to this game is to create four templates, based on O at R (one template) and O at S (three templates). Those four templates reveal that there are only six total solutions to the game.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

"MY PREFERRED APPROACH TO THIS GAME IS TO CREATE FOUR TEMPLATES..."
Dave I just don't get the chains. I would rather do this game by templates. But can you be so kind as to diagram those four templates where O is at R and O is at S? It would be highly appreciated. And Happy Holidays!

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Hope,

Thanks for the message. There is now a full setup as the first post in this thread

Thanks!

[Adam354]

Adding here since this took me so long to figure out how to be efficient.

Js->Kr Ks->Jr
Jr->Os Or->Js
Ls->Nr & Pr Ns or Ps->Lr
Nr->Or Os->Ns
Pr->Ks & Os Kr or Or->Ps

Diagram tree. Starting with the easiest and most direct. Nr->Or

Nr->Or->Js->Kr->Ps->Lr This captures all six variables, moving on to contrapositive, starting in reverse.

Ls, whoa, Ls goes to Nr which goes to Lr. L can't go in S. Place L in permanent R.

Pr->Ks->Jr->Os->Ns

This diagram allows you to auto answer all the questions. For example, what is the minimal amount of doctors able to be in S. Top diagram has two. Answer 2. That was the most difficult question.

For a while on these types of games, I was having good success by just creating templates because the chains were confusing me during the game. However, with a game like this, with so many rules, that becomes too cumbersome. So it was necessary to more deeply analyze the chains, and when I did, I realized I was making chains including all the variables, zig zagging everywhere. The way these chains are set up, there are five or six variables, in a clean line, making this game able to be done quickly and efficiently.

I'm excited to see a similar game to test this on soon.

[Adam Tyson]

All good analysis, Adam! In recent years we haven't seen as many of these games as we used to, sadly, and I suspect that's because LSAC figured out that test prep companies like ours had cracked the code and done such a good job educating students on how to handle them. That meant that a game type that was once commonly seen as difficult has become much easier, relatively, and so as the test naturally evolves to bring up new challenges and confound the experts, games like this become more and more rare. But conditional reasoning still plays a major role in many games, and this same approach can be very powerful even if the game is not entirely based on the chains.

[abigaili]

I'm really struggling with Rule 3 being moot/contradictory; I've read every post about it in the chain, but I just cannot see how it is not rule 4 that needs to be disregarded. I am working through this game really slowly, but I know that under a time crunch, I would be running through and linking rules, and see Rule 4, and instantly say, "oh that could not happen, disregarding that." Could you guys explain how one is to eliminate the validity of Rule 3 instead of 4? Thanks so much in advance.

[abigaili]

I'm really struggling with Rule 3 being moot/contradictory; I've read every post about it in the chain, but I just cannot see how it is not rule 4 that needs to be disregarded. I am working through this game really slowly, but I know that under a time crunch, I would be running through and linking rules, and see Rule 4, and instantly say, "oh that could not happen, disregarding that." Could you guys explain how one is to eliminate the validity of Rule 3 instead of 4? Thanks so much in advance.

I meant rule 5, sorry about that!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi abigaili,

It might help to not think of any of the rules being disregarded, but instead to think of them as not activated. When you have a conditional rule, it only applies when the sufficient condition is met. Otherwise, the rule is not active for that situation.

Rules 3, 4, and 5 are all still rules. It's just that because of rules 4 and 5, we can never meet the sufficient condition for rule 3. We can't activate rule 3, because it would cause a contradiction. Another way to think about conditionals is like hitting a button. When the sufficient condition is met, you hit that button and the rule applies. The necessary condition must also be met.

Let's run through what happens if we hit the buttons for rules 3, 4, and 5 separately.

Rule 3: LS NR, PR
If we hit the button on rule 3, we put L in S, which requires that P is in R, and N is in R.
But wait, N in R and P in R are buttons themselves. They each require contradictory things. One N is in R, O is as well. But once P is in R, O has to be in S. O can't be in both R and S, so we cannot meet the necessary condition.

Rule 4: NR OR
If we hit the button on this rule, we put N in R, requiring O also to be in R. This doesn't implicate rule 3 or 5 at all. We do know from rule 2 once O is in R, J is in S, but that doesn't contradict anything.

Rule 5: PR KS and OS
This one we start by putting P in R, and then we see K and O must be in S. K in S requires J in R, but otherwise, there aren't any further requirements. This rule also doesn't lead us down a path to contradiction.

So all the rules still stand. If L is in S, however, we end up with two conditionals (4 and 5) that cannot both be met. That just tells us that the conditional in rule 3 will not be activated in this game. If a conditional rule's requirements cannot be met, that sufficient condition cannot occur. That's what we see happen in rule number 3.

Hope that helps!