Question on Page 221 of PS LGB (may 2009 ed) Grouping setup

e10
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 12:03 am

Question on Page 221 of PS LGB (may 2009 ed) Grouping setup

Postby e10 » Tue Jul 27, 2010 3:11 pm

Can someone please help me understand this better, I am confusing myself...

It says :

1. B <---/--->D

2. B--->G

3. C--->D

4. G--->B

And then says you can combine 1 & 3 to C<--/-->B

And 1& 4 to G<--/-->D

And then an inference of C<--/--->G can be made. I am not following any of this. If someone can please explain.

Cambridge LSAT
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 3:26 pm

Re: Question on Page 221 of PS LGB (may 2009 ed) Grouping setup

Postby Cambridge LSAT » Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:03 pm

The inferences are a bit more obvious when you simply chain the rules together like so:
C ---> D <---|---> B <---> G

You could also diagram it without the double-not arrow:
G <---> B ---> ~D ---> ~C

Flipping and negating to form the contrapositive chain gives:
C ---> D ---> ~B <---> ~G

User avatar
esq
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Question on Page 221 of PS LGB (may 2009 ed) Grouping setup

Postby esq » Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:10 pm

Almost thought that you meant you were on the 221st page of your Lesbian Gay Bisexual Personal Statement, my bad :oops:

User avatar
Anaconda
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm

Re: Question on Page 221 of PS LGB (may 2009 ed) Grouping setup

Postby Anaconda » Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:18 pm

esq wrote:Almost thought that you meant you were on the 221st page of your Lesbian Gay Bisexual Personal Statement, my bad :oops:


Those jokes are seriously unoriginal.

e10
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 12:03 am

Re: Question on Page 221 of PS LGB (may 2009 ed) Grouping setup

Postby e10 » Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:27 pm

But why do you get to cut out the D & B to get to the C<--/--->G??

Does anyone have any strategies that work with grouping games? I have always struggled with them. I took a testmasters course last year, and messed up on the grouping game in sept and then in december. Also, maybe i'm wrong, but if i remember correctly testmasters would make you show whats in and whats out, but powerscore doesn't do that? is there a reason?

User avatar
pkrtbx
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 11:11 am

Re: Question on Page 221 of PS LGB (may 2009 ed) Grouping setup

Postby pkrtbx » Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:51 pm

e10 wrote:But why do you get to cut out the D & B to get to the C<--/--->G??

Does anyone have any strategies that work with grouping games? I have always struggled with them. I took a testmasters course last year, and messed up on the grouping game in sept and then in december. Also, maybe i'm wrong, but if i remember correctly testmasters would make you show whats in and whats out, but powerscore doesn't do that? is there a reason?


Because if C is selected D must be selected, which means that B cannot be selected, so G cannot be selected. Instead of having to write that out repeatedly, it is a quicker way of recognizing that C and G cannot be selected together.

Same thing with G<--|-->D. If G is selected, then B has to be selected, and if B is selected then D cannot be.

fosterp
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:09 am

Re: Question on Page 221 of PS LGB (may 2009 ed) Grouping setup

Postby fosterp » Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:15 pm

I personally hate the PS system of using bidirectional arrows and bidirectional not arrows. It seems rather than writing out a nice neat long chain inference the guide suggests making a hundred of these single rules for each variable that can affect another.

Personally I would look at it and combine them to get:

G -> B -> /D -> /C

And then you take the contrapositive of above statement:

C -> D -> /B -> /G -> /B

And basically there you have two rules that contain all four rules and their contrapositives. Whenever you are given a variable then you can pick the rule that has the variable and then follow it to the end, as long as you know you cannot go backwards on either chain. You can look at and easily see what can and cannot be possible much quicker than evaluating 6 different rules.

The B is in the second rule twice to demonstrate that you can go "backwards" from not g because of rule 2.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”