For LG #2 of the December 1995 LSAT, was the best approach the template approach before moving onto the questions? I applied the template approach during my blind review of the exam, but did not find that it helped me move through the questions quicker. Is there a better approach and/or critical inferences that dominated this game and would have helped increased my efficiency?
Setup and Rule Diagrams
6 posts • Page 1 of 1
Thanks for the question! This isn't a game where we use a template approach, and so instead we make a basic setup that then gets used to attack each question. Consequently, we use hypotheticals to solve certain questions, such as #7, #9, and #11.
Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!
PowerScore Test Preparation
Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/DaveKilloran
My LSAT Articles: http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/author/dave-killoran
PowerScore PodCast: http://www.powerscore.com/lsat/podcast/
Is there a better way to set up the game or make more inferences to get more information out of it? I set up the game with the following diagram, but feel like I don't have enough to be able to attack the questions. Any help is appreciated!
H ___ ___
G ___ ___
F ___ K
s q p
The main rule: G<--|-->L
The first thing I notice is that you have FGH all under Sales when they should be under Policy. So that's a problem.
As Dave has also noted you need to do Templates here, specifically for the supervisors because there's only 2 possibilities. Can you show me how you would represent that with the correction to the Policy column I mentioned?
Let's start there and keep talking!
On the Classifications page, this game was identified as Grouping: Defined-Fixed, Unbalanced: Underfunded, Numerical Distribution. I know that when a game is underfunded, so the variables must be repeated. But I was unable to figure out the Numerical Distribution here, so do you mind explaining this part? Was the Numerical Distribution part of the inference here?
For sure, LSAT2018! The Numerical Distribution is about how we can go about spreading the 6 employees around into those 9 spaces. Let's start with the basics: every one of the 6 employees must be used at least once, so that gives us this starting point:
That's only 6 spaces accounted for, though, so now let's create the most extreme distribution we can by adding as many of the extra, unaccounted for spaces to just one of our employees. There are three more spaces to deal with - can I give them all to one person, so that they have a total of 4 spaces? I cannot, because there are only three committees. That means the maximum number of committees that one person can sit on is all three. So, this gives me this change to the distribution:
That's 6 people into 8 spaces with everyone going at least once. But that leaves one empty space still that I have to fill, so I have to do one more thing to build my most extreme distribution, and that's add that one extra space to one of my six employees, like so:
Now I have all nine spaces accounted for, and this means one person is on all three committees, one is on two of the three, and the rest are on one committee each. That seems like it will work, and I might even try a hypothetical with it. The person who goes three times has to be an officer, since only officers sit on committee P. It cannot be G, because then G and L would be sitting on at least one committee together, violating a rule. So, in the 3-2-1-1-1-1 distribution, the 3 can only be either F or H. Conveniently, that inference answers question 8! (although we could probably have answered that one without the distribution, just based on the G/L rule)
But now we have to consider another distribution, one that is a little less extreme. What if I take one of the extra spaces away from that person who is in all three committees, and give it to someone else? Now I have this distribution:
That's more evenly distributed, and also looks possible, if a little less interesting. At least two of those 2s are going to be officers, because I need an officer on P and also on Q and I need a different officer from P to also be on S. The last person to double up could be the remaining officer, perhaps, or it could be a supervisor. Just beware of keeping G and L apart!
When the numbers do not match, consider whether a numeric distribution is called for. Start with the most extreme and then work your way towards to more even. Give that a try on a few other games and see how that goes. Good luck, and have fun!
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/LSATadam
6 posts • Page 1 of 1