Setup and Rule Diagrams

[Dave Killoran]

Setup and Rule Diagram Explanation

This is a Pure Sequencing game.

The game scenario sets up a linear scenario with six architects submitting projects in order, one at a time (and thus no ties are possible). The rules are all sequential in nature, and thus the game is a Pure Sequencing game. Let’s examine each rule.

Rule #1. This rule is fairly easy to diagram, and should be represented as:

PT53-Dec2007_LGE-G2_srd1.png

Rule #2. This rule is considerably more challenging to handle than the first rule. At first glance, the rule seems to set up two separate options:

PT53-Dec2007_LGE-G2_srd2.png

However, because the rule uses the phrase, “but not both,” each option is more complete than diagrammed above. Since the two options cannot both occur at the same time, when G J, then L G cannot occur, and we can thus deduce that when G J, then G L as well. This leads to the correct diagram for Option #1:

PT53-Dec2007_LGE-G2_srd3.png

A similar analysis applies to Option #2. When L G, then G J cannot occur, and thus when L G, then J G. This leads to the correct diagram for Option #2:

PT53-Dec2007_LGE-G2_srd4.png

This rule effectively creates two mutually exclusive outcomes, only one of which can occur in any given solution. Functionally, then, the rule creates two completely separate avenues to consider when one or more of these variables is in play. Of the three variables, G is the most important because both L and J relate to G (L and J do not directly relate to each other, but each relates to G).

This rule is very hard to understand under time pressure if you have not seen it before. However, Law Services has been featuring more of these “two mutually exclusive options” rules in recent years, most likely in order to introduce a greater degree of difficulty into Sequencing games, which are often considered by students to be relatively easy.

Rule #3. This rule is identical in nature to the second rule. The two mutually exclusive outcomes created by this rule are:

PT53-Dec2007_LGE-G2_srd5.png

V is the key to this rule (just as G is the key to the prior rule).


In most Sequencing games, as you read the rules you can connect them together to create a single chain sequence that involves all of the variables. When there is a rule that creates two mutually exclusive options, normally there is only one such rule, and the best approach is to create two separate chains, again involving all of the variables. This game, however, is unique in featuring two rules that each create two mutually exclusive options. Because each option includes G, the two rules can be combined, but doing so creates four separate possibilities, with the added difficulty of adding in the first rule to each of the four options. Thus, after considering the rules, you have a choice: either create the four possible chains or simply approach the questions and attempt to use the rules alone, with the understanding that certain variables such as G and V play a heightened role in the game. Our choice is to just use the rules to attack the questions because the amount of time needed to construct each of the four chains seems excessive, and because the four chains do not provide definitive solutions, each will still contain many possible solutions, and thus be confusing. With this approach in mind, here is the setup for the game:

PT53-Dec2007_LGE-G2_srd6.png

[srozek]

Hello There,

I found the second game of December 2007, to be more challenging than it looks.
I was only able to get a couple of inferences on the initial set up from the first rule of P>M>L, other than that, it took longer to get through the questions by the double situations the rest of the game presented.
I tried to do a couple of templates, but it was wasting too much time.
I did solve all the questions, but it took me a lot longer than anticipated, so I'm sure I missed some inference.

I would appreciate any help

Thanks
Sarah

[David Boyle]

Hello There,

I found the second game of December 2007, to be more challenging than it looks.
I was only able to get a couple of inferences on the initial set up from the first rule of P>M>L, other than that, it took longer to get through the questions by the double situations the rest of the game presented.
I tried to do a couple of templates, but it was wasting too much time.
I did solve all the questions, but it took me a lot longer than anticipated, so I'm sure I missed some inference.

I would appreciate any help

Thanks
Sarah

Hello Sarah,

These may help, or maybe you already figured them out (and with only 3 rules, I'm not sure how much can be figured out):

Given p > m > l, how do we "interface" "Green's design is presented either at some time before Jackson's or at some time after Liu's, but not both. Valdez's design is presented either at some time before Green's or at some time after Peete's, but not both." with that?

Well, you can call it "templates" if you like, but:

g > j OR l > g.
So: just lump in g > j in addition to the pml chain (sort of floating in an unrelated space); or,
p > m > l > g ---and g can't be ahead of j now, right? so it is equal to or behind j, and you can't have ties in this game, I think, so you can draw an arrow below the g, pointing to a j that has to be ahead of it somewhere undetermined.

And: v > g OR p > g. So, v > g (in addition to the pml chain, sort of floating in an unrelated space); or, the pml chain plus an arrow going backwards from p, so that g could be way in the back. But maybe not ALL the way at the back, since now v > g can't happen, so g must be ahead of v! Very tricky!!

There may be more, but like you said, how much you can do and still have time to do the questions, is questionable. Good luck,

Hope that helps,
David

[srozek]

Thanks David,

I did exactly what you outlined below, but it was time consuming to go through the questions & keep going back to the "floating" rules to see if the answers are correct.
I thought I missed some inference that's why it took too long to do the game.

I appreciate your help

Thanks
Sarah

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello David,
I understand the first part of your explanation regarding G and J, because of the rule that they cant be both. But I am having a hard time understanding the pml chain for v and G.


Thankyou
Sarah C.

[Jon Denning]

Hey Sarah,

I'll add my two cents here to see if I can make that more clear

The first rule gives us a chain with L, M, and P: P > M > L

That chain is fixed, and will affect or relate to the other two rules, both of which have some uncertainty to them.

Specifically, rule 2 tells us that one of two chains must occur:

Either G is ahead of both J and L, or else G is after both J and L.

Because G cannot be between J and L (J > G > L breaks the rule by not having G be either before J nor after L, and L > G > J breaks the rule by having G be both before J and after L, and the rule says "but not both"), then the two sequences above are all that can occur.

But from the first rule, P > M > L, we can quickly see that G must be either ahead of L and thus pushed up towards the front like P and M, or after L and thus towards the back after P, M, and L (and also J).

The third rule is the same as the second, giving us two possible sequences:

Either V is ahead of both G and P, or else V is after both G and P.

Again, because V cannot be between G and P (G > V > P breaks the rule by not having V be either before G nor after P, and P > V > G breaks the rule by having V be both before G and after P, and the rule says "but not both"), then the two sequences above are all that can occur.

So back to rule #1, P > M > L. V can either be way towards the front ahead of P (and M, L, and G), or V can be pushed a little further back after G and P (and thus mingling around with M and L).

Basically then there is still a lot of movement and uncertainty in this game, as multiple sequences are possible and many can interweave with one another. So instead of focusing on that, concentrate on the P > M > L sequence always (it's absolute), and then focus on violations of the second and third rules. That's still plenty to get you through the questions successfully.

I hope that helps!

Jon

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello Jon

Thankyou for replying back,your explanation really cleared that up. I think I was too focused on trying to establish the placements of J L V and G! Also, if I encounter a game like this on another LSAT is it a general rule to focus on the absolute chains that are mentioned in the rules, rather than finding inferences?

Thankyou
Sarah

[Jon Denning]

No problem!

To your question, I think it's really about both! Absolutes, like a definitive chain or a block or a fixed group or an unavoidable numerical distribution (the list goes on), give you inferences! That's how we used the fixed chain in this game to make Not Laws for those variables.

Similarly, uncertain rules (rules that still allow for multiple outcomes), like either/or chains or Not Blocks or several numerical distributions etc, don't restrict things as much and thus are less powerful in terms of making inferences. That's why rules 2 and 3 here didn't give us as much with certainty as rule 1 did.

So use that certainty vs uncertainty idea to better guide you as you look to make inferences, knowing that the more certain or restrictive some rule (or set of rules) is the more likely it will be that you can draw inferences from it

[kmpaez]

Would templates for this game be too complicated/a waste of time? Normally when I see rules similar to the second and third rules in this game I make a template.

[Adam Tyson]

Me too, kmpaez, although I am admittedly a template junkie. I see the possibilty of 4 templates here, based around the two alternatives for each of the last two rules. Possibly fewer, if one of those sequences dictates another one. I would probably dive in and find out, and my colleagues would make a little fun of me for doing so, and then I would finish the game in about 5 minutes getting everything right and not care that they made a little fun of me. Give it a shot, see what the templates give you, see how quickly and accurately you can do the game, and then you decide if templates were the right approach for you! Just be sure to connect them all together, including the sequence from the first rule. All your templates should have all 6 variables covered.

Let us know how that goes! I'm about to play with it myself!