Diagram

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

Here is a possible diagram for this game. This diagram was made in conjunction with our October LSAT Review Workshop, and Manhattan LSAT students can also watch a recording of that workshop.

Keep in mind that, as always, the diagram is not meant to represent a "definitive" way to set up a game, but rather just one very effective approach. Different Manhattan LSAT instructors will set up different games in different ways, and deciding which inferences to keep in your head and which ones to note down (for example, note that the common element in the Y1 and S2 spots can only be F or G, and we could have notated that if we chose to) is always a subjective process -- as long as your diagram helps you keep straight a clear understanding of the game, and helps you take command of the rules, you'll be in great shape.

If you have alternative suggestions for how to diagram this game, we'd love to hear them. Enjoy!

[ispawlak]

Can you let me know where to find the October review class?

Thanks!

If it's obvious, I apologize in advance....

[timmydoeslsat]

I believe the October review class has already taken place. I think it was done almost immediately after the test was released.

As for this game, I set mine up a little differently. I wanted the last rule regarding Y on the first day and S on the second day for a particular person to be a block.

And this YS block is then confined to either occur for F or G.

[xingdavid]

Did anyone else find this game to be difficult? There didn't seem to be that many inferences to be made, and I imagined there would be too many setups to frame this game. However there were three global Cannot Be True questions, and two of them really bogged me down to the point where I actually ended up skipping them (16, 18) . Am I missing an easier way to arrive at the answer for these particular questions?

[stephanieledesma88]

Did anyone else find this game to be difficult? There didn't seem to be that many inferences to be made, and I imagined there would be too many setups to frame this game. However there were three global Cannot Be True questions, and two of them really bogged me down to the point where I actually ended up skipping them (16, 18) . Am I missing an easier way to arrive at the answer for these particular questions?

At first I diagrammed this game the way I thought would be easiest to understand, which is how it's diagrammed above. However, everything just became a mess and I was messing up inferences. If you diagram it in the way that the first question sets it up, its so much easier. The cannot be true questions took me the longest as well. This game took me almost 15 minutes

[xingdavid]

I came up with 4 frames that did make the game more manageable. Without them, I just don't think it would be possible to complete this game within a reasonable amount of time. Even with the frames, it wasn't exactly easy to get some of the global questions.

Based on the deduction that Y cannot occupy the first H slot, and that Y cannot occupy J, Y1 can only occupy either F or G.

We also know that T must occupy one of the H slots.

This sets up four frames with Y1 in either F or G, and T in either H1 or H2.

[iridium77]

The diagram offered is ridiculous !
it's a lot harder to track the Y/S inference with the riders as the base... I would recommend using the bikes as the base, allowing the Y/S block to be stacked. The first question should be a clue re: recommended method of ordering...

[matthew.mainen]

I found 3 frames useful.



For the last frame, the circled T and S means they are interchangeable.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/matthew_ma ... 826670334/

I found organizing this really difficult, however. We've got multiple things to account for: (1) the days (2) the bikes and (3) the riders.

What's the best way to approach these? Intuitively, I was thinking the days and the bikes are fixed and the riders move around. It was still difficult, however, and advice would be appreciated.

[ohthatpatrick]

I agree with previous posters that the game is better set up with the bikes as a constant and the bikers RSTY the things to be put into slots.

For everything else in the game it's pretty much 6 one, 1/2 dozen the other, but for the YS chunk, we definitely want to see it like a chunk.

I actually used this kind of diagram:

F: __ __
G: __ __
H: __ __
J: __ __
....1...2

(those extra dots are just so that the 1 and 2 would appear underneath the columns)

I always put any ordering dimension as the vertical base, just because we're so used to doing ordering from left to right.

As we do with any chunk, we should ask ourselves, "Where can this YS chunk go?"

It can't go in J's row, because Y isn't allowed there.
It can't go in H's row, because that would leave no room for T.

So YS has to go in G's row or F's row. Hence, I would frame those two:

Frame 1:
F: Y S
G: __ __
H: __ __
J: __ __
....1...2

Frame 2:
F: __ __
G: Y S
H: __ __
J: __ __
....1...2

Frame 2 fills out nicely:

Frame 2:
F: T/S Y
G: Y S
H: (R, T)
J: (R, S/T)
....1...2

Frame 1, not so much. But, hey, that's what you typically expect from frames - one will lead to robust inferences while the other one does very little.

[andrewgong01]

I agree with previous posters that the game is better set up with the bikes as a constant and the bikers RSTY the things to be put into slots.

For everything else in the game it's pretty much 6 one, 1/2 dozen the other, but for the YS chunk, we definitely want to see it like a chunk.

I actually used this kind of diagram:

F: __ __
G: __ __
H: __ __
J: __ __
....1...2

(those extra dots are just so that the 1 and 2 would appear underneath the columns)

I always put any ordering dimension as the vertical base, just because we're so used to doing ordering from left to right.

As we do with any chunk, we should ask ourselves, "Where can this YS chunk go?"

It can't go in J's row, because Y isn't allowed there.
It can't go in H's row, because that would leave no room for T.

So YS has to go in G's row or F's row. Hence, I would frame those two:

Frame 1:
F: Y S
G: __ __
H: __ __
J: __ __
....1...2

Frame 2:
F: __ __
G: Y S
H: __ __
J: __ __
....1...2

Frame 2 fills out nicely:

Frame 2:
F: T/S Y
G: Y S
H: (R, T)
J: (R, S/T)
....1...2

Frame 1, not so much. But, hey, that's what you typically expect from frames - one will lead to robust inferences while the other one does very little.

I need with Frame 2 because I also saw it on the other solutions guide from the student center and I was not able to figure out how frame 2 is done such that "y" appears second for F

What I have is :
F: S/T T/Y
G: Y S
H:(R,T)
J: (R,T)

I have made it in red where we differed

[ohthatpatrick]

You wrote:

What I have is :
F: S/T T/Y
G: Y S
H:(R,T)
J: (R,T)

If you look at that, how many options are there for the 2nd Y?

You have it as an option for day 2 of F, but nowhere else. Since Y has to go on the 2nd day, it looks like you've fully determined that Y will be in F on day 2.

From your work, it also looks like day 1 of F must be S, since you don't have S as an option on any other day 1 spots. (this second one is incorrect, though)

F: _ _
G: Y S
H: ( _ T _ )
J: _ _

Since R can't go in F and G is already filled, the two R's will be in H and J.


F: _ _
G: Y S
H: (R, T)
J: (R, __ )

Where can the 2nd Y go? G and H are filled up and Y can't ever go in J.

So Y must go in row F.


F: _ Y
G: Y S
H: (R, T)
J: (R, __ )

We still have another S and another T.
We need to put S in a spot 1, but it looks like it could be in F or J.
We need to put T in a spot 1 or 2, and it could be in F or J.

Hope this helps.

[prusikknit]

I am having this same problem.