Diagram

[carmenmarrs]

Did anyone draw frames for this game? at first i wrote the rules in tree form, then tried to combine...like

H-F-G--> K-J/L
or
G-F-H--> J-k/l

but i still ended up doing LOTS of frames, especially for 7, 9, & 10...

should I have drawn the frames to begin with or just stuck to the tree rules? i got most right, but it took awhile to draw out hypothethicals for most questions...any suggestions?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

I think you are smart for thinking of frames. Most relative ordering games don't require frames, but this one is certainly made easier by using them.

I've attached a diagram solution. Take a look, and let me know if you have any questions!

MK

[carmenmarrs]

that was amazing! great diagram...now if i could only spot the right ones to do this type of split diagram with! My 1st diagram (after i wrote the rules-2ce the amount of time), was similar, but with this diagram I was able to do most questions without doing more frames...probably cut my time in half!


thanks so much!

[velvet]

Those 2 frames were genius! I have a habit of always writing the contrapositive for conditionals, so when I put down the contrapositives for the main 2 conditionals, I ended up confusing myself and wasn't able to clearly see the H-G & G-H sort of biconditional relationship going on. How come you didn't bother putting down the contrapositives in this one? I want to avoid making this mistake again. (I at least avoid writing the contrapositives for In/Out games except when necessary.) Thanks.

[hanselle.c]

Just wondering - -
The Final rule resulting in F-G-H or G-F-H; how does this rule imply that we can't have H and G BEFORE (more expensive) than F?
Is it b/c the rule states an either/or+not both, and therefore any other alternative is ruled out?
I suppose I am to assume that this is always the case, for rules worded this way?

Thanks!!

[noah]

Is it b/c the rule states an either/or+not both, and therefore any other alternative is ruled out?
I suppose I am to assume that this is always the case, for rules worded this way?

Exactly! It can't be more expensive than both. These sorts of rules do generally work out that something or somethings must be in the middle or on the outside. You can get some practice at that by playing our LSAT Arcade game "Draw It" - http://www.manhattanlsat.com/lsat-arcade.cfm

Have fun!

[jamiejames]

Due to the last constrain, wouldn't I have to make 4 frames? For the G-H one depicting both F-G and F-H, and for H-G depicting both F-G and F-H?

[noah]

Due to the last constrain, wouldn't I have to make 4 frames? For the G-H one depicting both F-G and F-H, and for H-G depicting both F-G and F-H?

I think you may have misinterpreted the rule about F.

Before you read the last paragraph of this post, consider where it can fall in each situation: before both, in the middle, or after both:

G-H

H-G

Got it?

In both situations, the F must between the two elements. It can't come before (and after) both of them, only before (and after) one. Do you see why?

[jamiejames]

Due to the last constrain, wouldn't I have to make 4 frames? For the G-H one depicting both F-G and F-H, and for H-G depicting both F-G and F-H?

I think you may have misinterpreted the rule about F.

Before you read the last paragraph of this post, consider where it can fall in each situation: before both, in the middle, or after both:

G-H

H-G

Got it?

In both situations, the F must between the two elements. It can't come before (and after) both of them, only before (and after) one. Do you see why?

ooooh I feel so silly now . It took a while off looking at my 4 diagrams, then it clicked and I had a huge "aha" moment. Thank you

[noah]

then it clicked and I had a huge "aha" moment. Thank you

Nice work. I thought you'd figure it out with a bit of prodding.

[tanner.lindsey.m]

Even with the diagram, I'm having a hard time with question #9. I can eliminate A and C, but what can't B or E be true?

[timmydoeslsat]

An ordering game with conditional statements. We really luck out with rules that allow us to infer the structure of the entire game.

During the rules, we are given a condition of G-H as well as a condition of H-G. These are the only possibilities in an ordering game.

So we can use all of the other rules given in the ordering game to make two ordering trees.

This is my global diagram:



There are two situations in this game and, for ease of communication, I labeled them 1 and 2.

1 = G-H situation
2 = H-G situation

Question 9 is a local question asking what could be true if we have L-F. As you can see, we will not be in situation 1, as this has F-L.

We can start with what we know, L-F, and use the ordering tree in situation 2 to make inferences.



We know that G must follow F according to situation 2. We also know that H and K must precede L.



We also know that J must proceed K. (Get used to that kind of language!)



So this is what we have. As we can see G could certainly come prior to J.

[Amontillado]

Is it b/c the rule states an either/or+not both, and therefore any other alternative is ruled out?
I suppose I am to assume that this is always the case, for rules worded this way?

Exactly! It can't be more expensive than both. These sorts of rules do generally work out that something or somethings must be in the middle or on the outside. You can get some practice at that by playing our LSAT Arcade game "Draw It" - http://www.manhattanlsat.com/lsat-arcade.cfm

Have fun!

Hi Noah, for the last rule, is it possible that F is LESS expensive than both G and H? It only excludes F-G,H, but could it be possible that G,H-F occurs?

Thank you : )

[Illogical_Historian]

Hi everyone,

I still don't understand how F can't be last after both G and H. I thought with "either/or not both" statements there was always a possibility that both statements could be false.

A---->/B

Or

B--->/A

You are either in Chicago or New York but not both.

Well can't it be the case that somebody is in neither Chicago or New York? I thought there was a possibility of neither A nor B occurring in an "either or but not both" scenario.

Is is because "or else" makes the outcome of the question one possibility? That is, if it is neither F <G or F <H as a possibility does that violate "or else." Can somebody help me see the errors of my ways?

Thanks.

[MatthiasJ110]

Hi,

I am having an issue with rule #4. I understand that F can either be more expensive than G, or H, but that F cannot be more expensive than both G and H. But what I don't understand is why G and H could not be BOTH more expensive than F at the same time. This possibility doesn't seem to be adressed by the rules.

Previous answers on this post have stated that rule #4 creates two frames : H-F-G and G-F-H. It makes sense that F can never be more expensive than both G and H, as it is stated by the rules. However, how do you know that H-G-F or G-H-F is impossible in this game ?

Thank you.