PT 26 Logic Game #4

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
Anaconda

Posts: 605
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm

PT 26 Logic Game #4

The setup tripped me up.

I had two options for the two years:

IGYZ
FHVZ

When solving there were several problems that left me with two possible answers since the actual setup was

IYZ F/G
FHVZ

However I'm having trouble understanding why G doesn't have to be picked at all while H does especially since the rule wording is exactly the same. If someone can detail why the setup is the way it is I'd greatly appreciate it.

Nikrall

Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:25 pm

Re: PT 26 Logic Game #4

Anaconda wrote:The setup tripped me up.

I had two options for the two years:

IGYZ
FHVZ

When solving there were several problems that left me with two possible answers since the actual setup was

IYZ F/G
FHVZ

However I'm having trouble understanding why G doesn't have to be picked at all while H does especially since the rule wording is exactly the same. If someone can detail why the setup is the way it is I'd greatly appreciate it.

You need to be more clear about exactly what you are asking...

When you mention the setup do you mean two alternate ways of doing the game? Or are you talking about year 1 and year 2?

But the difference is probably because G is related to V which is related to I, whereas H is just related to Y.

That is...the rule mentioning both V and I actually relates to G since the rule about G mentions V.

Anaconda

Posts: 605
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm

Re: PT 26 Logic Game #4

The first pair is my solution. The second pair is the actual setup; with g being optional (with f instead). I'm asking why g is optional rather than necessary as part of the setup based on the wording of the rules.

blackwater88

Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:40 pm

Re: PT 26 Logic Game #4

Anaconda wrote:The first pair is my solution. The second pair is the actual setup; with g being optional (with f instead). I'm asking why g is optional rather than necessary as part of the setup based on the wording of the rules.

What do you mean it's your solution?

I'm confused.

You could have two years like this:

I Y Z F (F being the chair)
I Y Z G (doesn't matter who the chair is)

Hence G is not necessary, Having F and not G conforms with the rules. If you have I you have to have Y and Z, hence you can't have H and are left with F/G. There's nothing that precludes one from taking the place of the other since out of the two only G has a restriction, and it's with a scientist that is already out of the setup.

Nikrall

Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:25 pm

Re: PT 26 Logic Game #4

Anaconda wrote:The first pair is my solution. The second pair is the actual setup; with g being optional (with f instead). I'm asking why g is optional rather than necessary as part of the setup based on the wording of the rules.

Ok, you still aren't being entirely clear, but lets see if I can answer this anyway.

I and V must be there, but they both cannot be there. So one way of figuring out possibilities about the game is to break it down into two different solutions. Those with I in it and those with V in it.

The year with I in it, must be IYZ F/G. This is because if V is not there, both Y and Z must be there. Then since Y is there, H cannot be there, that leaves the last space as being F or G.

The year with V in it follows similar reasoning. The V means that G cannot be there. It also means that I cannot be there. Since we need two from the beginning of the alphabet and 2 from the end of the alphabet, that means that H and F both need to be there. Since H is there, that means that Y cannot be there and so for the second solution you get V, H, F, and Z.

Anaconda

Posts: 605
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm

Re: PT 26 Logic Game #4

I'm just confused why F/G rather than just G. The H/Y rule was worded identically, yet it appears that both H and Y MUST appear in the setup and in different years. G however isn't required to appear at all, just required to be a different year than V when it does?

blackwater88

Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:40 pm

Re: PT 26 Logic Game #4

Anaconda wrote:I'm just confused why F/G rather than just G. The H/Y rule was worded identically, yet it appears that both H and Y MUST appear in the setup and in different years. G however isn't required to appear at all, just required to be a different year than V when it does?

No it doesn't, it clearly says "H and Y do not serve in the same year", they both could not serve at all. Come on, if you have I in both years you'll notice that you can do away with G in either year and the first rule becomes irrelevant for the reasons I've already stated earlier, G is NOT necessary.

Nikrall

Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:25 pm

Re: PT 26 Logic Game #4

Anaconda wrote:I'm just confused why F/G rather than just G. The H/Y rule was worded identically, yet it appears that both H and Y MUST appear in the setup and in different years. G however isn't required to appear at all, just required to be a different year than V when it does?

The H/Y rule is identical to that G/V rule. However Y has no (other) rules affecting it. V has the V/I rule affecting it. That is why G is different than H.

Anaconda

Posts: 605
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm

Re: PT 26 Logic Game #4

blackwater88 wrote:
Anaconda wrote:I'm just confused why F/G rather than just G. The H/Y rule was worded identically, yet it appears that both H and Y MUST appear in the setup and in different years. G however isn't required to appear at all, just required to be a different year than V when it does?

No it doesn't, it clearly says "H and Y do not serve in the same year", they both could not serve at all. Come on, if you have I in both years you'll notice that you can do away with G in either year and the first rule becomes irrelevant for the reasons I've already stated earlier, G is NOT necessary.

Uhh, the rules (1 & 2) are written identically with only the letters switching, read them over again.

blackwater88

Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:40 pm

Re: PT 26 Logic Game #4

Anaconda wrote:
blackwater88 wrote:
Anaconda wrote:I'm just confused why F/G rather than just G. The H/Y rule was worded identically, yet it appears that both H and Y MUST appear in the setup and in different years. G however isn't required to appear at all, just required to be a different year than V when it does?

No it doesn't, it clearly says "H and Y do not serve in the same year", they both could not serve at all. Come on, if you have I in both years you'll notice that you can do away with G in either year and the first rule becomes irrelevant for the reasons I've already stated earlier, G is NOT necessary.

Uhh, the rules (1 & 2) are written identically with only the letters switching, read them over again.

I'm saying that neither rule, by itself means to say that you MUST choose one or the other for each year. You could not use neither of the four just by looking at each rule individually. The magic happens once you put everything together.

hax123

Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:47 pm

Re: PT 26 Logic Game #4

F is a floater, so it can be used in any setup.

Anaconda

Posts: 605
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm

Re: PT 26 Logic Game #4

Nikrall wrote:
Anaconda wrote:I'm just confused why F/G rather than just G. The H/Y rule was worded identically, yet it appears that both H and Y MUST appear in the setup and in different years. G however isn't required to appear at all, just required to be a different year than V when it does?

The H/Y rule is identical to that G/V rule. However Y has no (other) rules affecting it. V has the V/I rule affecting it. That is why G is different than H.

Thanks, I'm slowly understanding why this works. I think the difficulty is catching the G/F possibility during the setup procedure.

Q 21 reveals that Z isn't the only possiblity to be chairman for year 2. In Q 21, all options except for F has restrictions that clearly3 make them the wrong choice. Based on my original setup, I clearly messed up, since it shows that only Z can be chairman for year 2, which isn't necessarily true if G isn't on either of the panels.

I think the G/F inference is rather hard to catch, if I had a similar game I honestly can't say it wouldn't trip me up again.