## PT 29 - Piano Classes LG

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
Easy-E

Posts: 6487
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:46 pm

### PT 29 - Piano Classes LG

Game 4, section 3, PT29...

I obviously can't post the problem here, but it seems like I'm having trouble making a key inference on this problem. Questions 20-22 give me no trouble, but I come to a grinding halt on 23 and 24. I keep coming up with no correct answer for 23, so obviously I'm missing something. Thus far I haven't had any problems with these pure sequencing games, so this is really annoying me. I feel like theirs a big inference I'm not making that should really narrow this problem down, since theirs a good deal of conditions given.

Manhattan LSAT Noah

Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:43 am

### Re: PT 29 - Piano Classes LG

how does your diagram compare to the one in here? http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/pre ... 35793db74b

The first time I ever played it I didn't stress the relative nature of the game enough. I think the multiple people in a slot threw me off.

Easy-E

Posts: 6487
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:46 pm

### Re: PT 29 - Piano Classes LG

Manhattan LSAT Noah wrote:how does your diagram compare to the one in here? http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/pre ... 35793db74b

The first time I ever played it I didn't stress the relative nature of the game enough. I think the multiple people in a slot threw me off.

I do not have the N/S and H elements on my diagram, otherwise its the same. Looking at that diagram now, I'm not sure why I didn't include these elements on mine. I was also confused by the whole multiple elements issue as well.

For question 21, I figured G couldn't be last or second to last, but I think I assumed O couldn't be in P's class, and therefore I eliminated all answers with fifth or sixth as an option.

I suppose 23 would have been solvable had I used the full diagram, and 24 is just a case of switching out an ititial condition. I'm not sure what threw me on this problem honestly, I usually have no trouble with these types.

Manhattan LSAT Noah

Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:43 am

### Re: PT 29 - Piano Classes LG

cool - I think that means you figured it out. nice.

Sounds like a careless mis-thought (new word?) and not going the distance on your diagram. Of the two issues, the latter is a bit easier to address. When you have X number of elements in your roster, if your diagram has all but one or two of them noted, throw the remaining ones in there somewhere. If nothing else, have them floating above the whole thing like the stay puft marshmallow man (he didn't really float, but I have a soft spot for him). To me, it's part of the "who's left?" move, which can help you out of a jam on conditional questions.

Easy-E

Posts: 6487
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:46 pm

### Re: PT 29 - Piano Classes LG

Manhattan LSAT Noah wrote:cool - I think that means you figured it out. nice.

Sounds like a careless mis-thought (new word?) and not going the distance on your diagram. Of the two issues, the latter is a bit easier to address. When you have X number of elements in your roster, if your diagram has all but one or two of them noted, throw the remaining ones in there somewhere. If nothing else, have them floating above the whole thing like the stay puft marshmallow man (he didn't really float, but I have a soft spot for him). To me, it's part of the "who's left?" move, which can help you out of a jam on conditional questions.

Yeah, I think I overlooked how the different conditions narrowed down where each element could actually be relative to one another. I have photocopys of all the games, so I'll be saving this one for the future. Thanks for the help with identifying where I went wrong!