Diagram

[kevin.cynthia]

I have finally completed this game. However, I do not feel that my diagram was sufficient. Also, I completed the game untimed and got -1. Would someone please critique my diagram. Lastly, Q23, I got the correct answer but it was luck. I marked out answer choices B-D. So, I was down to A and E. I chose E (correct answer) because it was on my diagram. However, I thought A could have been right as well because N was hired at least one yr before P. THerefore, N could not share a specialty with P, right?

Thank you,

P.S. I just got a new computer and do not have office yet. Sorry if the diagram seems confusing. If you have any questions please ask.

[stackoutawinner]

Without looking at your diagram, I went ahead and took the challenge. I finished this game in 13 minutes, which is far too long - especially considering how much information they give!

I need more practice, so thank you for posting your question.

I've attached a solution which I think you'll find helpful.

The key to the game is realizing the first constraint is given in the set up before they list out constraints.

If the last question was luck, then I know you didn't make all the inferences in your set up, and they are SUBSTANTIAL in this game. With the condition given in question 23, you have the entire set up except one element, and that element is limited to two places.

Please see the attached.

I see you made another post... I have to get some work done, but will see if I can get to it later. I'm sure by then Dan or Noah will have responded.

[stackoutawinner]

After looking at your diagram, you took a lot of time on your not laws. I have a feeling you were focusing on the NOT instead of the WHERE.

In this game, it's easier to figure out where the places go and where P can go, then it is to determine where things CAN'T go.

I believe you will make a breakthrough in this game after you see the cloud I created. My diagram was the same as yours except I gave up the not laws after writing 3 of them, and I wrote in a cloud - which you could have written from your not laws.

Hope that makes some sense.

[kevin.cynthia]

Great explanation. I too was on the same track. I got the same inferences as well. However, your method of diagramming was much faster than mine. Thank you for your reply. It has helped tremendously.

[stackoutawinner]

In answering your original question about 23, choice A is a could be choice. P could go in 91, but doesn't have to. It could also go in 90 which would mean N & P would not share a specialty - if you can find a case where it's not true, then it's the wrong choice. The question asks for what must be true (can never be false).

[dan]

Hey guys. Great conversation.

I looked at my original setup for this game and then checked your notes. I arrived at the same place you did (all letters defined except for P, and P limited to 90, 91, or 92). As Stacks mentioned, if you can get that far your job on the questions is made much easier!

As far as #23 goes, I think the original confusion between A and E came down to how you were reading the question (which MUST be true). You were exactly right... it COULD be true that N doesn't share a specialty with Paton, but it doesn't have to be true in all cases. Thus, answer (A) can be eliminated.

You guys have done well on this one. Maybe you're still concerned about timing, but that's okay. Speed will come. I know the temptation to question your approach when things took longer than hoped, but your approach was right on the money.

Thanks for posting.

dan

[interestedintacos]

I have to disagree with the sentiment that in this game someone might be focusing too much on the not laws. I used that approach and was able to crack open the game and see all the inferences you guys saw quickly. I think the "not laws" were the key to the game; by placing them you begin to see the severe limitations. It lets you quickly see, for instance, that no one can go with M and that no one can be hired in 1994. And if you kept up after each inference (for instance realizing that O's placement dictates another set of "not laws" regarding T) you certainly cracked the game.

"Not laws" work for me. I suppose the trick is being able to stop and analyze after you have a number of not laws placed and think about what variables are left over and where they can go. The two pieces go together.

[joliebella]

Is there a clearer diagram with explanations? The one provided seemed a bit detailed. Please post thanks.

[jamiejames]

Is there a clearer diagram with explanations? The one provided seemed a bit detailed. Please post thanks.

well, it needs to be detailed because with each rule, you knock out a bunch of possibilities.

[AndrewB184]

Why is P considered the floater, and not S considering the rule is
"Patton and Sarkis were each hired at least one year after nillson.

Couldnt S also be a floater?

[AndrewB184]

I realized I missed a key inference that clues you in on why P is a floater.

Each professor has one or more specialities, and any two professors hired in the same year.....

[laurent437]

I got a little confused with this game in regards to the shared specialties. Specifically for what it means when the rule states that M shares a specially in common with O. If I could draw your attention to Q19, it states that P is hired in either 90 or 92. But if it's hired in 90, then P cannot share a specialty with O, but we know that O shares a specialty with M. So P cannot also share a specialty with M either. The correct answer contradicts this relationship. Then, if P is hired in 92, it still cannot share a specialty with M. In both scenarios, P and M cannot share the same specialty.

This reasoning also led to my confusion on 23.

23 says that P and M have a specialty in common, but if M and O share a specialty, then anyone that shares the specialty cant be hired in 89, 90, or 91. If P shares a specialty with M, then P can't be in 92 either.

Why is it possible for P and M to share a specialty if the specialty shared with O and M cannot be the same specialty in 89, 90, nor 91.

Hope this all made sense. Thanks !