Pure sequencing diagram question Forum

[Paraflam]

Ok, I'm working through the LGB but once I got to pure sequencing, found that LSAT Blog's method for diagramming ("tree diagram" method) was much easier to understand. However, I got to this game and got stuck. How would I diagram the last rule?

E is heavier than A
A and B are heavier than C
D and H are lighter than C
F and G are lighter than D and H (???)

[Manhattan LSAT Noah]

I assume you're having trouble with the F an G part.

The rest is pretty standard

D -- C -- A -- E
H -- --- B

(the H and B are attached to the C)

For the F and G, I'd put them in a circle attached to D and H. Either one of those needs to be first.

BTW, if you want more practice, we teach the tree diagram, and that chapter is a free download in our store.

[Paraflam]

Awesome, thank you! Didn't think of using a circle, I was trying to figure out how you would use lines to connect the 4 variables but couldn't figure out an intuitive method.

Really don't understand how Powerscore came up with such great diagramming methods for all the other gametypes and such an incoherent clusterfuck of one for pure sequencing. Did someone else already copyright the tree diagram method or something?

[Audio Technica Guy]

--ImageRemoved--

that's what I would do

Did this come from an actual game? I can't recall LSAC ever doing a sequence like that, though it would be totally legitimate for them to do so. Also, it's something I wouldn't spend a ton of time worrying about, because it seems like LSAC has more or less stopped doing pure sequencing.

[Manhattan LSAT Noah]

Awesome, thank you! Didn't think of using a circle, I was trying to figure out how you would use lines to connect the 4 variables but couldn't figure out an intuitive method.

Really don't understand how Powerscore came up with such great diagramming methods for all the other gametypes and such an incoherent clusterfuck of one for pure sequencing. Did someone else already copyright the tree diagram method or something?

I won't comment on PS, but in their defense, they probably view this game type as simple enough to not require anything too fancy.

We have seen some folks copy our methods and claim it as their own - and then we saw that Kaplan had something like the tree a while before us, so go figure...

[Audio Technica Guy]

Awesome, thank you! Didn't think of using a circle, I was trying to figure out how you would use lines to connect the 4 variables but couldn't figure out an intuitive method.

Really don't understand how Powerscore came up with such great diagramming methods for all the other gametypes and such an incoherent clusterfuck of one for pure sequencing. Did someone else already copyright the tree diagram method or something?

I won't comment on PS, but in their defense, they probably view this game type as simple enough to not require anything too fancy.

We have seen some folks copy our methods and claim it as their own - and then we saw that Kaplan had something like the tree a while before us, so go figure...

Yeah, at TPR we have a huge book of all the teacher suggestions for how to teach things that have been brought up in workshops. Pretty much every conceivable way to approach a problem has already been thought of by somebody at some point. I saw that several methods that I thought I had "invented" had been done 5 years before. It's really hard to say that somebody copied your methods. Because, in the end we're all just doing logic that dates back to Aristotle.

[Paraflam]

Thanks Audio, that works too. Actually this is one of the practice setup drills from the LGB. I first assumed that they took it from an actual game but since there are only a few pure sequencing games on available PTs they probably just made this up for practice.

The LGB gives some interesting data regarding the appearance of pure sequencing games appearing on recent tests. LSAC hasn't completely scrapped them altogether, but they have become very infrequent recently. Powerscore seems to think there is a high probability that one will appear on an upcoming test. Fingers crossed, because I think they're one of the easiest types!

[Paraflam]

Also in Powerscore's defense, I guess, is that their method allows for a way to show equality if it ever were to appear. If one of the rules read "E is not lighter than A" Powerscore would have you diagram that as something like "A>=E" since E could be the same weight as A, but the tree diagram method would produce the same diagram as if the rule would have read "E is heavier than A" (A-E), is that correct? I haven't run into a situation where this would come into play, but I suppose if a question asked "which ones could be the heaviest?" or something like that, it would.

[Manhattan LSAT Noah]

in the end we're all just doing logic that dates back to Aristotle.

Thanks for making our work sound deep!

[Audio Technica Guy]

Also in Powerscore's defense, I guess, is that their method allows for a way to show equality if it ever were to appear. If one of the rules read "E is not lighter than A" Powerscore would have you diagram that as something like "A>=E" since E could be the same weight as A, but the tree diagram method would produce the same diagram as if the rule would have read "E is heavier than A" (A-E), is that correct? I haven't run into a situation where this would come into play, but I suppose if a question asked "which ones could be the heaviest?" or something like that, it would.

how I usually will annotate "A is not heavier than B" is draw A as being heavier than B and just put a big slash through it, indicating that it didn't happen (this is only an issue if A and B can be equal, if they can't be equal, just turn it into A is lighter than B). I could be more systematic, but that kind of clue has never happened on a pure sequencing game, and I'm not sure we should prepare for something that has never been done. Preparing for things that LSAC could do, as opposed to what they have done, just opens up too big of a can of worms.

[Audio Technica Guy]

Thanks Audio, that works too. Actually this is one of the practice setup drills from the LGB. I first assumed that they took it from an actual game but since there are only a few pure sequencing games on available PTs they probably just made this up for practice.

Nothing that is just a practice drill setup is from a real test. Under LSAC's licensing agreement, any time you use their materials, you have to reprint them exactly as they were. Games can't be split up into setups and then questions later.

For instance, we wanted to use an args question where we only needed the first of two questions in a paired argument (you know where there is one argument, but two questions about it). LSAC made us print both out and just put the second question in a slightly lighter font.