Setup and Rule Diagrams

[Dave Killoran]

Setup and Rule Diagram Explanation

This is a Basic Linear: Balanced-Moving, Numerical Distribution game.

The game scenario indicates that seven professors were hired over a period of seven years. That sounds like a recipe for a simple Linear game, but the second-to-last sentence in the scenario indicates that two professors can be hired in the same year and therefore the game is not necessarily in a 1-to-1 assignment ratio. To break down the setup for this game, first we will examine the professors that are hired, then the specialties, and finally the various restrictions governing the hiring and the specialties.

The first rule places M and R, and part of the fifth rule places O:

The second, third, and fifth rules address the specialties (Sp) of the professors, grouping them as follows:

Note that these are not linear blocks, but rather a method to show the grouping of the professors according to shared specialties, and that professors can have other specialties. These specialty groupings have a significant impact on the game when considered in light of the restrictions stated in the game scenario. We will examine those restrictions in a moment.

The fourth rule creates a sequence:

This rule generates its own set of Not Laws and inferences, but we will examine that in connection with the restriction about the specialties.

The game scenario contains two not-block rules involving the specialties:

These extremely restrictive rules about the specialties create a plethora of Not Laws, but also make this game relatively easy. The final setup is created by taking the following steps:

1. Because T shares a specialty with M and O, T cannot be hired in years 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, or 94.
It follows that T must be hired in 95:

2. Due to the sequence, N must be hired in before M; but because N shares a specialty with R, N
cannot be hired in years 90, 91, or 92. Therefore, N must be hired in 89:

3. Due to the sequence, S must be hired after N but before M; since S shares a specialty with O, S
cannot be hired in years 90 or 91. Therefore, S must be hired in 92:

Thus, the only uncertainty in the game is the hiring of P. Since P must be hired after N but before M, P can only be hired in 90, 91, or 92. With so few possibilities, the game is quite easy. This is the final setup:

Note that although this game has only three solutions, this isn’t technically an Identify the Possibilities game because there is no decision to show the possibilities; instead, the natural process of making the setup organically results in all of the variables except one being placed.

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello

I am also having trouble with this game. When the the stimulus mentions that each professor has one or more specialties and any two professors hired in the same year or in consecutive years do not have a specialty in common. How does this figure into the set up. Also the only rule that helped me was the first one, because wit was a restriction.

Would this be the proper set up because of the consecutive nature of the years?

89 90 91 92 93 94 95

Thankyou
Sarah

[David Boyle]

Hello

I am also having trouble with this game. When the the stimulus mentions that each professor has one or more specialties and any two professors hired in the same year or in consecutive years do not have a specialty in common. How does this figure into the set up. Also the only rule that helped me was the first one, because wit was a restriction.

Would this be the proper set up because of the consecutive nature of the years?

89 90 91 92 93 94 95

Thankyou
Sarah

Hello Sarah,

I think that would probably be the proper base (as opposed to the entire "setup"), since chronological bases are often a good thing in the LSAT world: natural progression over time, etc.
Something you might want to look at in trying to do your own setup or template(s), is the "repulsion" effect. The idea that "any two professors hired in the same year or in consecutive years do not have a specialty in common", is sort of like magnets of the same polarity repulsing each other, a little bit. If profs have the same specialty, they hate being close to each other, in this game! So that repulsion effect should be a big factor in setting up the game properly, and looking for limiting factors. (There may be a lot of "Not Laws" in this game...) Good luck!

Hope this helps,
David

[fmihalic1477]

Hello,

I am also having trouble with this game. Could someone please give a full set up (Not Laws included). I have the not block with RN/NR, the not block of MOT (whatever order), and the not block with OS/SO which means that S cannot be hired 89-91. Lastly, N before P and S and those two at some point before M in 1993. This then puts P/S(or both, see below) in 1992. However, N must be hired in 89 because T cannot be hired in that year because of rule 2 and it must go before p, s, and m. Is this right?

Where I get confused is with the wording the rules. This numerical distribution is 1-1-1-1-1-1-1 with 7 professors and 7 hiring years. However, in the rules it states that "any two professors hired in the same year or in consecutive years do not have a specialty in common." This tripped me and I fell, hard.

Is it possible that 1994 is left blank with T in 1995?

For number 19, A is correct because P and O could be hired in the same year, conceivably?

For number 23, E is correct because P could either be hired with R o with O while S must stay put or it would violate rule number 5.

I know that this is a lot, but thank you for your help! This problem frustrated me a lot.

[David Boyle]

Hello,

I am also having trouble with this game. Could someone please give a full set up (Not Laws included). I have the not block with RN/NR, the not block of MOT (whatever order), and the not block with OS/SO which means that S cannot be hired 89-91. Lastly, N before P and S and those two at some point before M in 1993. This then puts P/S(or both, see below) in 1992. However, N must be hired in 89 because T cannot be hired in that year because of rule 2 and it must go before p, s, and m. Is this right?

Where I get confused is with the wording the rules. This numerical distribution is 1-1-1-1-1-1-1 with 7 professors and 7 hiring years. However, in the rules it states that "any two professors hired in the same year or in consecutive years do not have a specialty in common." This tripped me and I fell, hard.

Is it possible that 1994 is left blank with T in 1995?

For number 19, A is correct because P and O could be hired in the same year, conceivably?

For number 23, E is correct because P could either be hired with R o with O while S must stay put or it would violate rule number 5.

I know that this is a lot, but thank you for your help! This problem frustrated me a lot.

Hello fmihalic1477,

Re 'However, in the rules it states that "any two professors hired in the same year or in consecutive years do not have a specialty in common." This tripped me and I fell, hard.': so you do understand the concept at this point? Just checking.

Anyway, your reasoning is not too bad. Let's focus on N for the moment. As you surmise, N has to be in 1989. R in 1991 prevents N from being 1990-1992, so considering rule 4 that pushes N forward, 1989 is all that's left for N. O is in 1990, of course. S must be in 1992, for reasons you mention above. And M is in 1993 from rule 1.
Who's left? P and T. Let's look at some Not Laws...

As for Not Laws: some of the most prominent are "no N for 1990-1992"; "no O or T for 1992-1994" (because of M being in 1993); "no S in 1989-1991" (as you mentioned above), and "no T in 1989-1991". There may be other Not Laws, e.g., "no N for any space besides 1989", but they may be less relevant.
So, T has to go in 1995. P is the only one left, and can go in 1990-1992, per rule 4.

As for "Is it possible that 1994 is left blank with T in 1995?", yes.

As for "For number 19, A is correct because P and O could be hired in the same year, conceivably?", yes.

And as for "For number 23, E is correct because P could either be hired with R o[r] with O while S must stay put or it would violate rule number 5.", yes.

Hope this helps,
David

[fmihalic1477]

It did help thank you!

Yes, I understand now. I have to have a sharp eye on the wording. Had I know that although it is a 1-1 distribution, there is flexibly, I never would have been confused.

[avengingangel]

was this game deemed as pretty easy on this administration of the exam ? from the rules, you're able to figure out the placement of every single variable except for P, yes? The questions didn't seem to make anything more complex, either. They all took me just a few seconds. I say this not to gloat, but because I'm generally not very good at games, & I just want to make sure I'm not missing something here. Is this just a game where the set-up takes much longer (LOTS of not laws to get thru, as someone noted earlier), which makes up for the fact that the questions are so easy to get through?

[Charlie Melman]

Hey Avenging,

You're absolutely right that this game depends heavily on understanding the rules and coming up with the right setup. Once you do that, you can blow through the questions in a relatively small amount of time.

[T.B.Justin]

I tried this game setting up a horizontal base with the professors once and then years. Years was more efficient for me.

Any other ideas for template design with where P could be 90,91 or 92? He floats, but I need a way to better represent that in a diagram since I tend to forget details under timed pressure in games that have a lot of rules to remember.

There are at least three different specialities. I used S subscript 1,2,3 to identify them in a specialities row above the base. Any ideas on how to diagram that in way that is more efficient?

[Claire Horan]

Hi T.B Justin,

To show that P could have been hired in years 1990-1992, use the space high above your blanks to draw a curly bracket from 1990 to 1992, with the letter P. That shows that P can go in any spot in those three years.

It's not necessary to try to track specialties (and the game rules suggest it's not necessary by not naming them). All you need to know is that if variables are next to or stacked on top of each other, they don't share a specialty, and if they are no touching, they might share a specialty.

I hope this helps!