Setup and Rule Diagrams

[Dave Killoran]

This game is also discussed in our Podcast: LSAT Podcast Episode 70: The May 2020 LSAT-Flex Logic Games Section

Setup and Rule Diagram Explanation

This is an Advanced Linear: Balanced, Identify the Templates game.

This is a good opening game for those who saw this Logic Games section on the May Flex exam.

The game begins by introducing three separate variable sets:

• Five Successive Calls: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
  
  Five Calls: Q, R, S, T, V
  
  Call Types: L, L

The five calls have sense of inherent order, so you should select those as the base:

• 1 2 3 4 5

We can then stack the Calls and the Local/Nonlocal designation on top of each space:

• L/L:   ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
  
  
  Calls: ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
  1      2      3 4 5

Note that with the Local and Nonlocal calls, you designate those however feels most comfortable to you. So, some people might use L and NL. We chose to use L and L.


With the base diagram in place, let's analyze the rules on a basic level. Afterwards, we will dive into some of the interactions that lead to inferences:

• Rule #1: This rule establishes that a QV block exists, and that S's call is sequentially before Q. The rule can be diagrammed as:
  
  S QV
  
  
  Rule #2: This rule assigns different types to S and V. Since there are only two call types, either S is Local and V is Nonlocal, or S is Nonlocal and V is Local. This can be shown as a pair of vertical blocks:
  
  
  L L OR L L
  S V       S V
  
  
  
  Rule #3: This rule establishes vertical blocks where both Q's call and T's call were Local:
  
  
  L L
  Q T
  
  
  Rule #4: This rule establishes that the third call was Nonlocal:
  
  
  • L/L:   ___ ___ _L_ ___ ___
    
    
    Calls: ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
    1      2      3 4 5
  This also means that neither Q nor T can be third (form the third rule).

The question now is, "Where should you start in analyzing what can occur?" Given that the first rule established a powerful block-sequence that involved three of the five variables, that is a logical starting place.

The QV portion of the rule initially appears to have only three possible placements: 2-3, 3-4, and 4-5. This alone would be limiting enough to consider making three templates, but then from the third rule we know Q is Local, and we also know from the fourth rule that the third call is Nonlocal. So, Q can never be third. That limits the QV block placement to just 2-3 and 4-5. Using that information, you should make two base templates for this game:

Template #1: QV in 2-3

With QV in 2-3, from the first rule S must be first. That then allows R (a random) and T to rotate in the 4-5 slots. From the call type standpoint, since V is third, from the fourth rule we know V is Nonlocal. Using the second rule, that forces S to be Local. Q and T are Local from the third rule, and R can be either Local or Nonlocal.

• L/L:   _L_ _L_ _L_ _?/L_ _L/?_
  
  
  Calls: _S_ _Q_ _V_ _R/T_       _T/R_
  1      2      3      4      5

Template #2: QV in 4-5

This template is considerably less restricted than the first template, and thus you should immediately suspect this template will figure in more of the questions.

With QV in 4-5, R, S, and T must appear in the first three slots. Because T is Local and third call is Nonlocal, T must be first or second, and then S or R must be third:

• L/L:   _L/_ _/L_ _L_ _L_ ___
  
  
  Calls: _T/_ _/T_       _R/S_ _Q_       _V_
  1      2      3       4 5

With these two templates in hand, this game can be done fairly quickly. Expect the second template to be tested more (since it has more possible solutions).

[justsum1]

Okay, but the rules say "Quinn's call was immediately before Vitt's but at some point after smiths"...

Couldn't "some point" be immediately before QV? Wouldn't we annotate it S+QV rather than dictating that there is at least one space; S_QV?

It's frustrating that the LSAT is so specifics driven then they make a broad statement which we are somehow supposed to know that fits a more specific criteria. This is written wrong and I guarantee that multiple people have ran into this issue because we are supposed to focus on specifics, or at lack of specifics "at some point".

[justsum1]

Also, where does it say if Q is local than V has be local? Why is everything assumed to be local rather than non-local?

So confused. I do not see where it says "everything is local unless stated otherwise". How did you reach that assumption?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi justsum1,

You are absolutely right that S could go directly before Q and V. It's required in our first template, and a possibility in our second. However, we want to make sure we draw a relationship that reflects what we KNOW about S and QV. We don't know they have to be consecutive, so we use that dash between S and QV to represent the less than exact relationship of somewhere before. If we wanted to show that S was EXACTLY before QV we would have put all three in a box. If we wanted to show there is a space, that dash would be lower down. The dash in the middle means exactly what was said in the rule, that S is somewhere before Q.

I'm not sure where you are seeing if Q is local than V is local. We have a rule saying Q is ALWAYS local, so we want to represent that. In template 1, V is nonlocal. If you could let me know a bit more about this confusion, I'll try to help out a bit more.