PT 60 S2 Game 4 "Interns"

User avatar
niederbomb
Posts: 962
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 12:07 pm

PT 60 S2 Game 4 "Interns"

Postby niederbomb » Sun Dec 05, 2010 5:06 am

Used the search function, and the best I could find was a thread where the explanation was removed by the mods for spamming.

I've already written all over the copy I have printed out, and it looks like a mess, so I can't really try my new diagram out.

When I originally did it, I misunderstood "field," and I got the only ones I attempted to do wrong (after going 17/17 on the rest).

However, looking at it more closely when the clock is not ticking, it seems "field" refers to either P or W, right? So, I guess the key inference is the fact that there are only two templates for P and W?


--------- [R/S/T]
WWPPPW [W/P]
---------
F G HJ KL [Interns]

AND


--------- [R/S/T]
PWPPWW [W/P]
----------
FG H J KL [Interns]

I think maybe if there were more space, there would be limited templates for the stories

Update: Yes, I guess K is R in one template and T in the other.

But why is it so hard to make these deductions? Is there a simpler way to set up this game that isn't so counterintuitive?
Last edited by niederbomb on Sun Dec 05, 2010 5:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
St.Remy
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 10:12 pm

Re: PT 60 S2 Game 4 "Interns"

Postby St.Remy » Sun Dec 05, 2010 5:11 am

Sorry if I'm being a worrywart but I think your layout of the problem might be a little too detailed for this forum. As a person who took this test I can say that a two column, three row graph is sufficient to solve this puzzle. Good luck with your studies!

User avatar
niederbomb
Posts: 962
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: PT 60 S2 Game 4 "Interns"

Postby niederbomb » Sun Dec 05, 2010 5:21 am

St.Remy wrote:Sorry if I'm being a worrywart but I think your layout of the problem might be a little too detailed for this forum. As a person who took this test I can say that a two column, three row graph is sufficient to solve this puzzle. Good luck with your studies!


Wait, you mean for copyright purposes, or too detailed meaning there's a simpler way?

I put a PT 49 game setup in my avatar a long time ago, and no one has quibbled about it. What type of two column three row graph?

SupraVln180
Posts: 883
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 10:50 pm

Re: PT 60 S2 Game 4 "Interns"

Postby SupraVln180 » Sun Dec 05, 2010 12:53 pm

niederbomb wrote:
St.Remy wrote:Sorry if I'm being a worrywart but I think your layout of the problem might be a little too detailed for this forum. As a person who took this test I can say that a two column, three row graph is sufficient to solve this puzzle. Good luck with your studies!


Wait, you mean for copyright purposes, or too detailed meaning there's a simpler way?

I put a PT 49 game setup in my avatar a long time ago, and no one has quibbled about it. What type of two column three row graph?



He meant for copyright purposes. I would highly doubt a TLSer would suggest someone is taking a too complicated approach to a problem.

justadude55
Posts: 963
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 12:23 am

Re: PT 60 S2 Game 4 "Interns"

Postby justadude55 » Sun Dec 05, 2010 12:58 pm

niederbomb wrote:Used the search function, and the best I could find was a thread where the explanation was removed by the mods for spamming.

I've already written all over the copy I have printed out, and it looks like a mess, so I can't really try my new diagram out.

When I originally did it, I misunderstood "field," and I got the only ones I attempted to do wrong (after going 17/17 on the rest).

However, looking at it more closely when the clock is not ticking, it seems "field" refers to either P or W, right? So, I guess the key inference is the fact that there are only two templates for P and W?


--------- [R/S/T]
WWPPPW [W/P]
---------
F G HJ KL [Interns]

AND


--------- [R/S/T]
PWPPWW [W/P]
----------
FG H J KL [Interns]

I think maybe if there were more space, there would be limited templates for the stories

Update: Yes, I guess K is R in one template and T in the other.

But why is it so hard to make these deductions? Is there a simpler way to set up this game that isn't so counterintuitive?

you can set up 2 sketches around whether the 2 dudes who are in the same field are writers or photographers, and it becomes really easy.

you have to select who you have before you can put them in order or pair them so your inferences should start there....just common sense.

delusional
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:57 pm

Re: PT 60 S2 Game 4 "Interns"

Postby delusional » Sun Dec 05, 2010 1:22 pm

Wow, I'm so excited to respond to this question... I had an almost identical game on the September Sabbath observer's test, and I utterly bombed it. I learned my lesson, or so I thought, but when I encountered it again on PT 60, which I had never seen, I didn't do much better. Then, as I went over old sections last night (long motzei shabbos FTW!), I found another very similar setup - PT 55, Game one - law students and arguments. This time I KILLED it. Go me!

The common thread in all of the games was a double grouping game (although powerscore calls it advanced linear) - three groups of 2 teachers/interns/law students, each of whom fits in to one language/news story/debate team. The best diagram is three columns, two rows (add one column and row for header.)

The main inference that helps to crack each of the games is this. Let's call them three groups (column) of two types (row). Two interns (I'll mark them as A and B) have different types (PT 60), and two law students have different arguments (PT 55). At the end of each row (rows track types), which should be labeled by P or W on PT 60, or O and F on 55, you should mark A/B and B/A, because one of the three group-slots in this type must be taken by one of those two (obviously, we still don't know which one). Each three person group now has two type-slots available for the remaining four elements.

Then, we find that one element is set - C is on a particular group, or D delivers a particular type of argument. THEN we find, that there's a block that will only fit on one TYPE of the group - i.e. if A and B are in different fields, leaving two slots in each, C is in one particular row, and then D and E are the same TYPE, then the killer inference is that D and E must not be in the same TYPE as C - because that TYPE (row) already has A OR B AND C - there is no room for two more people in it. So now you have one type with A OR B and C, and the other type has B OR A and DE.

Which leaves F, which hasn't come up yet, to fill the remaining space with A OR B and C. Now all the elements are classified by type, except, obviously, A/B which are interchangeable.

The above template is a little time consuming (it's also not exact, but is somewhat more specific to PT 60 than to 55) but with those inferences you can approach the questions and knock them off very fast. HTH.

Oh, and if you didn't like my description, it's basically built off the one I found on LSATblog, so you can try his on for size, too.

justadude55
Posts: 963
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 12:23 am

Re: PT 60 S2 Game 4 "Interns"

Postby justadude55 » Sun Dec 05, 2010 2:10 pm

@delusional to play devil's advocate, the game on that test was not as difficult as the 1 OP is talking about.

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

Re: PT 60 S2 Game 4 "Interns"

Postby fosterp » Sun Dec 05, 2010 2:30 pm

I found this game to be really hard my first time through because I didn't make the two key inferences.

J had only one possible position, being P in Tuscany, because if it was W, the GL block would force FL into the same row which was against rules.

So J had to be P, and H had to be P, which meant that GL had to be W, and then it was just a matter of fitting position of H around F/K in the P row, and fitting the GL around F/K in the W row.

With those inferences, the game becomes quite easy.

Its figuring out those inferences that is the big problem. The way the game is worded initially makes the game seem very confusing and hard to diagram. If you don't start the game with the right diagram I can see it being a huge headache and taking way longer that it should. Sort of reminds me of some of the older games that really relied on making inferences to get through them. Its annoying in that it almost seems to be down to luck to if you spot them or not. Some of the notorious older games I found easy such as snakes and lizards and the jewels games were due to key inferences that broke the game open.

Oh and the proper diagram would be something like

p _ _ J
w _ _ _
...R S T

delusional
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:57 pm

Re: PT 60 S2 Game 4 "Interns"

Postby delusional » Sun Dec 05, 2010 5:35 pm

justadude55 wrote:@delusional to play devil's advocate, the game on that test was not as difficult as the 1 OP is talking about.

I don't know, the setup for 55 needed more inferences, and the setup for Sabbath October one may have been almost identical to PT 60. For me, after what happened on the actual test repeated itself when I took PT 60 for the fist time, I was just hoping that I'd have an opportunity to make a similar diagram and inferences. And then I was happy that I found it... It may still be hard, but it's doable in 10 minutes rather than 15, which means I won't have to leave out a game if I encounter it again.

User avatar
niederbomb
Posts: 962
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: PT 60 S2 Game 4 "Interns"

Postby niederbomb » Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:49 am

I don't know why I thought I had to use the interns as a base. I guess it makes more sense to have two columns, three rows. Thanks!

BTW, the PT 55 game was very easy. I don't have it in front of me, but I remember going 22/23 on that section versus 17/23 on PT 60 (with all the missed points coming from interns).




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexandros, Back2California, Baidu [Spider], batlaw, bcapace, HokieHi307, Instrumental, lymenheimer, Pozzo and 16 guests