December 2010 Logic Games, the third game

secretad
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:26 pm

December 2010 Logic Games, the third game

Postby secretad » Sun Apr 03, 2011 12:32 pm

This is the game with the SoftCorp employees and the five talks.

The key to logic games is having a super set up. However, with this game I had a struggle determining which was the best way to have a base set up.

Was it to use the employees as the base because we know exactly how many talks each attends?

Or is it the talks because there is an order to them, with F-G-H-I-L, being the order?

It seems to me that the talks must be the base because using the employees as the base would cause problems with the talks being in order. I don't think one could even realistically (in the time constraints of the test) have a base set up with the employees being the base.

User avatar
Jeffort
Posts: 1896
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: December 2010 Logic Games, the third game

Postby Jeffort » Sun Apr 03, 2011 2:52 pm

Using the talks as the base of the setup is the proper way to go since there is an order to them that is important to easily be able to keep track of. Since the last two rules involve dealing with the order, it would be pretty confusing to try and apply them to a base that is the people rather than the talks.

The rule of thumb is always use the variable set that has an inherent sense of order as the base of the set-up, live by it!

secretad
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:26 pm

Re: December 2010 Logic Games, the third game

Postby secretad » Sun Apr 03, 2011 5:08 pm

I do live by it. However, I also remember the game with the researchers and languages such as Rundi and Swahili. And it was like a geologist and a paleontologist?

Those used the languages as the base set up because we knew how many learned each language.

In this game, the December 2010 third logic game, we know how many talks each goes to, so I leaned towards that one.

Is the reason to not do it that way solely because of the fact that the languages did not have a sense or order like these talks do.

User avatar
Jeffort
Posts: 1896
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: December 2010 Logic Games, the third game

Postby Jeffort » Sun Apr 03, 2011 7:03 pm

Yeah, the reason on this game not to use the people is because the talks have an order they go in which would not be illustrated by a base using the people.

The researches and languages game, if I'm remembering the same game was a grouping game that did not have anything to do with ordering.

secretad
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:26 pm

Re: December 2010 Logic Games, the third game

Postby secretad » Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:02 am

So, I am now having a tough time with number 15 on this game of December 2010.

Sure, I can get to the answer, but it takes an inordinate amount of time. An amount of time I will not be able to spend on that question on the day of the test.

I looked at the Manhattan LSAT diagram on their website and it did not really seem to help that much.

secretad
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:26 pm

Re: December 2010 Logic Games, the third game

Postby secretad » Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:53 pm

The #15 problem states that none of the people attend Handling People, which is one of the talks.

Thus, we have this

_ _ x _ _

_ _ x _ _
F G H I L

-Q -R -Q
-T -R


I know that s and t cannot form a vertical block. I only have four columns left, thus I know that each column must encompass one of either s and t. I know that t cannot occupy the F column, thus S must go there.


_ _ x _ _

S _ x _ _
F G H I L

-Q -R -Q
-T -R


We have two other constraints:

T1 --> Q
R1 --> S

Just because S is in F does not necessarily mean that R's first talk must join it at first glance. It turns out that answer choice (A), R attends F, is a must be true situation. Of course, I can power through and churn out hypotheticals, but that isn't something that is going to lead me to a 170 I believe. What if the correct answer were (E) in this problem? I would have to churn through four could be true/false hypotheticals before reaching my must be true.

I just do not see how R attending F is so blatantly obvious without doing a hypothetical with R being in both I and L, which then forces this scenario to occur:


_ Q x S T

S T x R R
F G H I L

-Q -R -Q
-T -R


And as you can see we need to place the two Q's and we cannot do that because Q does not attend F.

My question is if there were a more efficient way to get to that answer.

Edited to add: Sorry about the not laws/rules below the talks of my diagram. I did not format it like that. The not Q and not T fall under F.

The not R falls under G.

The not Q and not R fall under H.

SanDiegoJake
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:17 pm

Re: December 2010 Logic Games, the third game

Postby SanDiegoJake » Thu Apr 07, 2011 6:39 pm

The key thing that you possibly missed was a deduction that T cannot attend the first talk. Since you know that Q cannot attend the first talk (Feedback), and you also know that Q must attend T's first talk, that means that there's no way that T could attend Feedback, as this would be T's first talk.

But if I read your diagram correctly, then you DID make that deduction. If you did make that deduction, then it's quite simple.

Once you know that nobody is attending Handling People, that means that each of the other four talks must be fully attended (2 attendees per talk). The fact that neither Q nor T can attend Feedback means that it's definitely R and S in there.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests