Diagram

[jenndg100380]

Can someone please explain this?

[hutch.sarahs]

I just tried doing this game and I can't get past the first question - any help would be greatly appreciated!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Here's a slide for the setup for this game.



Let me also address question 16 which is usually a question that really gives people a headache. It's not as bad as it appears at first read.

The best approach is to just go to answer choice (A) and see if it can work given the new game board involving 6 cars. Unfortunately, that throws out our frames, but fortunately we don't have to work very far. Answer choice (A) ends up being something that cannot be true!

Orlando cannot go first because Orlando is preceded by Vinquetta. Orlando cannot go second or third because there is only one premium. Orlando cannot go fourth because if Orlando went fourth, then Marquitta would go fifth, and Frank would go last. That would violate the last constraint that Marquitta and the car in front of Marquitta get a regular car wash. Orlando cannot go fifth or sixth since both Marquitta and Frank must receive car washes after Orlando.

Thus, Orlando cannot get a premium wash, and answer choice (A) is correct.

I hope this helps you see this one a bit better! Good luck. And let me know if you need any more help on this one.

[mgirgenti]

Just posting to be updated when the slide is loaded... got hung up early on in this game.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The earlier post is updated and the slide is attached. Good luck!

Also:

I just reworked this game, and the first time I ended up getting this question correct. The second time brings me to my question. We know T is after V, but can't T go anywhere between the rest of the people getting their car washed (O, M, and F)? In this case, how do we get that M and O HAVE to get a regular wash. Seems to me that O and T would be interchangeable making only M the one that HAS to receive the regular wash.

See the attached slide in the post above. The game can be "framed" to help get control of the moving parts. The correct answer to question 15 must contain all and only those characters that must receive regular car washes in both frames - answer choice (B).

Let me know if you don't see it that way, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

[mgirgenti]

I see the inference I missed now. Thanks!

[jenndg100380]

I see it now also! thanks for your help.

[ryan.oconnor110]

Matt,

I was looking over your two frames and have one question I couldn't seem to resolve. In frame #2, why is the second car automatically washed with R? I think I am missing something because I thought the most you could infer was R/S.

[tianfeng102]

Well, you forgot to apply the rule #3 -- The second and thiyd cars washed receive the same kind of wash as each other. Since #3 is R, so is #2!

Matt,

I was looking over your two frames and have one question I couldn't seem to resolve. In frame #2, why is the second car automatically washed with R? I think I am missing something because I thought the most you could infer was R/S.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

thanks tianfeng102! that's exactly right...

[Haggins2]

I am a little confused on how you solved number 16. I dont quite get how you made the inferences you made. Any chance you could help me a little more with this one?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Sure, just think about what our new game board looks like

_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
1 2 3 4 5 6

We know the same rules still apply as well.

For question 16 we need to find an answer choice that CANNOT be true. Go to answer choice (A) and check to see if it could be true. Since no matter how we try we cannot get answer choice (A) to work, then we know that answer choice (A) CANNOT be true and is the correct answer.

Let's try making answer choice (A) work:

Where could receive a premium?

1st: O cannot go first, because V is always before O.
2nd: O cannot go second, because there is online one premium and the second and third cars must get the same kind of wash - that would mean at least two premiums.
3: O cannot go third for the same reason as why it cannot go second.
4: O cannot go fourth, because M, then F need to follow it. That would put M in fifth and F in sixth. M and the car in front of it need to have a regular wash, so O could go fourth - but would not have a premium wash.
5/6: O cannot go fifth or sixth simply because M and F need to follow O.

Does that help clear up this challenging question?

[mturner]

I understand the explanation for # 16, but how do you know where J goes or is that even necessary?

[rachael.swetnam]

In the second one on your setup, why is P first? Why not S/P?

thanks

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I understand the explanation for # 16, but how do you know where J goes or is that even necessary?

It's not necessary to know where J goes. We can still infer that O cannot receive a premium given the original constraints and the addition of a sixth player - regardless of the fact that we do not know where the sixth player goes.

It's tricky, huh? Because you think you need to start with Jabrohn. But you don't! In fact you can't. The only thing Jabrohn really does is destroy how limited the game was thereby invalidating our frames for this question.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

In the second one on your setup, why is P first? Why not S/P?

thanks

Sometimes it's easy to miss something from a constraint, especially when you're really getting two pieces of information at once. Check out the first constraint. It tells us that the first car washed does not receive a super wash.

Let me know if you need any more help on this one!

[interestedintacos]

Would you agree that this is an advanced linear game?

I have a simple question--is it true to say that advanced linear games are actually hybrid games of simple matching (aligning two sets of variables) and sequencing ?

An advanced linear game instantly turns into an assignment game if you take out rules/questions that require you to sequence the variables; is that not true?

In this game you match up cars (FMOTV) to wash type (PRS) and to the 5 washing slots. That's 3 sets of variables. If this were an assignment game you would actually draw the exact same diagram ( but the issue would be matching FMOTV to PRS and it wouldn't matter in what order 1-5 came). IS that so?

Actually take a look at game 1 of this PT (PT 30). My diagram in that game is almost identical to my diagram in this game (although there are 6 slots instead of 5). Both games have 3 variable sets and line up (at least in my mind) identically; however in the first game we are simply matching up the variables (grouping task), and in the second we are both matching up AND sequencing. That's the way it seems to me that advanced linear is really just a combo of grouping and sequencing.

Am I on base here or getting something wrong?

If you could take a look at this and respond it would be a HUGE help to me.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Happy to help. I think you're looking at it slightly differently then I see it. If you think about it, every game is either ordering, grouping, or a combination of the two.

In some respects this game is like the first, but in the first game, you do not know how many slices of oatmeal, rye, or wheat bread there are in addition to not knowing whether each of those were sliced or unsliced. In this game we benefit from the fact that each character goes only once. If there were no ordering element to this game, I don't think we would have set it up similar to G1 from this section. Instead we would have used the Open Board, since this would be a standard open assignment game at that point. It probably would have looked like this

Now I'm making this up a little as I go since there is an ordering element and we cannot remove it so cleanly from the rules.

We know there are at least two regulars (M and the car with it?), there is exactly on premium, so there must be one or else only two supers. Creating the following two frames.

_
_
_ _ _
R S P

_ _
_ _ _
R S P


What do you think? Seem like a good way of organizing the game?

[interestedintacos]

I agree with you. I didn't mean to imply we would set that game up the same way if we took out the linear element. It's obvious why the way you just showed would be better.

If the order aspect is relevant we'll want to set up the 1-5 variable set on the bottom in a linear/horizontal fashion. If it's not relevant then it makes sense to use a vertical open or closed board diagram (depending on the game).

On page 214 of the MLSAT logic game strategy guide, it shows a 3 variable set supposedly open assignment game diagram--which is set up with a number variable set as the base. In that game one of the variable sets is days (1-3), but it leaves open whether the game will feature any sequencing rules. It says the game is an open assignment game.

I think from what you're saying that game is actually an advanced linear (3d linear?) game (or a combo of assignment and linear), like the car wash one, if the days variable set is actually relevant based on the rules. So that would appear to be an error in the book.

Now that I look again at the bread game I wouldn't use the 1-6 variable set as the base, because the order is irrelevant. That page in the MLSAT guide misled me, I think.

I would instead make an open board diagram with O, R and W as the base and U or O as the variables to be assigned, keeping in mind that we actually don't have to assign a single U or O to every one of O, R and W (although the open board diagram gives you the tools to represent that). Clearly it's a difficult one because the the variable set with U and O allows repeats or omissions, and the groups of O, R and W are fairly wide open as to how many they can have (although R is limited to 3 and we know O has at least one).

I still think advanced linear can be seen as a sort of hybrid between assignment and linear.

What's interesting and a little overwhelming is the diversity of hybrid games the testmakers could throw at you. A combo of assignment and ordering could take many different forms. On top of that I can imagine some situations where there might be a fine line of how best to represent a game, or even where a few questions could require a completely different representation in order to make the necessary inferences (although I haven't run into a game like this yet). Or there could be a situation where you would have to read the prompt, rules AND the questions in order to figure out how to represent the game.

An example of variety: the game where you group a set of variables into one of two groups: tennis or golf, and then you also rank them, but the order is for each category; ordering the two categories together would be meaningless. The two sets of rankings are independent from each other, so it doesn't make sense to set up a typical advanced linear diagram (or any other sort of grouping+linear diagram). Instead it makes sense to use a normal binary grouping diagram and then a normal ordering diagram as two separate diagrams. All it would take is a tiny bit of trickery by the testmakers (which they didn't use in that game) to throw you off.

Any thoughts on how to handle this?

[aerialstrong]

I understand the explanation for # 16, but how do you know where J goes or is that even necessary?

It's not necessary to know where J goes. We can still infer that O cannot receive a premium given the original constraints and the addition of a sixth player - regardless of the fact that we do not know where the sixth player goes.

It's tricky, huh? Because you think you need to start with Jabrohn. But you don't! In fact you can't. The only thing Jabrohn really does is destroy how limited the game was thereby invalidating our frames for this question.

It actually also works when we start with where J goes.
2 scenarios: J goes before M or after M.

When J goes before M, M goes to No. 5, so 2,3,4,5 are all r wash. O is one of them. can't be P wash.

When J goes after M, M goes to No.4, so 2,3 are both r wash, O is one of them. So O can't be P wash.