PT34, Splittin Game: "Randsborough or Souderton"

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

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

PT34, Splittin Game: "Randsborough or Souderton"

Holy hell, my heart goes out to anyone who had this game on their test day. Once I got the set-up down I had no problem with the questions, but thats the catch, the set-up took me a lifetime. Is there any way I could have spotted the problem with L(S) prior to drawing out my first (invalid) logic chain? Once I recognize that L could NOT go to Souderton, the game was fairly easy, just creating and interpreting two logic chains, but I wasted a good chunk of time figuring that out. So, I guess the question is, did anyone spot that error right from their initial rules?

Jeffort

Posts: 1888
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: PT34, Splittin Game: "Randsborough or Souderton"

You pretty much need to create the chains to see how the rules in combination with each other constrain L.

One issue many students commonly have with this game is that they think they messed up diagramming the rules and second guess themselves once they see that chaining the rules together leads to a contradiction if you try to put L in S.

Easy-E

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

Re: PT34, Splittin Game: "Randsborough or Souderton"

Jeffort wrote:You pretty much need to create the chains to see how the rules in combination with each other constrain L.

One issue many students commonly have with this game is that they think they messed up diagramming the rules and second guess themselves once they see that chaining the rules together leads to a contradiction if you try to put L in S.

Yeah it definitely threw me off course the first time, I've never seen a game where one of the conditions would actually make a valid sketch impossible. Once I got past that big wrench in the gears I found it was a relatively easy game though.

nodrog

Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:37 pm

Re: PT34, Splittin Game: "Randsborough or Souderton"

guys- I'm lost.

From the rules of this game I worked out this chain and its contrapositive. I didn't put L(S) at the beginning of the chain because i realized that it won't work. I think I'm making a mistake somewhere when diagramming the chain...

This is what I understand:

A) When working with conditional chains on "splitting" games (2 groups--both present), there are usually three basic scenarios. With longer chains, I'm unclear on how to diagram the third.
1) The Chain A(1)->B(2)
2) The Conditional B(1)->A(2)
3) ehh the fact that Both A and B could both be (2).

-But how does scenario 3 translate to longer chains?

Also,
When you do get your chain worked out, how do you go about diagramming it? (from back to front?)

Here is my chain and contrapositive from this game:

N(R)->O(R)->J(S)->K(R)->P(S)
P(R)->K(S)->J(R)->O(S)->N(S)->L(R)

I have two templates from this:

S: JP (N/) S: NO (K/) (P/)
R:OKL (/N) and R: LJ (/K) (/P) (if K(R) then P(S) )

I must be leaving out acceptable scenario's--I know from some of the questions: none of the AC's match my templates.....So something is wrong here--What is it?

Easy-E

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

Re: PT34, Splittin Game: "Randsborough or Souderton"

nodrog wrote:guys- I'm lost.

From the rules of this game I worked out this chain and its contrapositive. I didn't put L(S) at the beginning of the chain because i realized that it won't work. I think I'm making a mistake somewhere when diagramming the chain...

This is what I understand:

A) When working with conditional chains on "splitting" games (2 groups--both present), there are usually three basic scenarios. With longer chains, I'm unclear on how to diagram the third.
1) The Chain A(1)->B(2)
2) The Conditional B(1)->A(2)
3) ehh the fact that Both A and B could both be (2).

-But how does scenario 3 translate to longer chains?

Also,
When you do get your chain worked out, how do you go about diagramming it? (from back to front?)

Here is my chain and contrapositive from this game:

N(R)->O(R)->J(S)->K(R)->P(S)
P(R)->K(S)->J(R)->O(S)->N(S)->L(R)

I have two templates from this:

S: JP (N/) S: NO (K/) (P/)
R:OKL (/N) and R: LJ (/K) (/P) (if K(R) then P(S) )

I must be leaving out acceptable scenario's--I know from some of the questions: none of the AC's match my templates.....So something is wrong here--What is it?

I'm in class so I can't check against my work, but it looks like your chains are the same as mine. I'm not sure about the templates though. I think you need to remember that those two chains aren't the only two possible outcomes, you don't necessarily have to start at the beginning of the logic chain. Just because you have O(R) and everything that follows, you could still have N(S).

That might not have even been the mistake you made, I'll look at my work when I get home and edit this.