PT 53 S2

Game 2: confessing burglars. I got this game in about 7 mins the first time I did it, and then redid it recently and struggled. IIRC I had a much harder time with the inferences. More practice to catch the inferences, I suppose.

PT 54 S3

Game 1: six dancers on/off stage. I hate this game. I don't like these types of games, so any tips would be appreciated. I actually bought the Manhattan book solely for this game bc I wasn't getting it with Powerscore.

Game 2: review of 6 CDs: 7/7 correct

Game 3: cake w/ 6 layers: 5/6

Game 4: six contract bids: 6/6

PT 55 S4

Game 1: law students on trial teams: 5/6

Game 2: messages while on vacation. I really struggled with this game. I looked up the explanation on Manhattan's games forums but still struggled with it.

Game 3: productivity of night/day shifts. I did okay. I can make inferences for who can/cannot be at the ends of the diagram, but when it asks for things like who can't be third, that throws me off. This game was so-so.

Game 4: shuttle stops at four cities. Struggled through this one.

PT 56 S1

Game 1: sax auditions: 5/6

Game 2: moving furniture. Didn't even know where to start, really.

Game 3: trees in the park; 5/5, easy.

Game 4: executives visiting manufacturing plants: 4/7.

I worry that I'll get a group of 4 games that I can't deal with at all and completely ruin my score and my confidence. PT 54 was okay bc 3/4 games I could work on. My brain is fried!

Okay, hopefully I don't go into too much detail here, but I thought I'd try and help out on PT 54 Game 3.

First, write every rule and it's contrapositive underneath it. Some here advocate against writing out all the contrapositives, but I find it extremely helpful, and it only costs a couple of seconds.

The first two rules are clearly related, and so we have to figure out what's going on there. Because we have the contrapositives written out, I think the relationship between the two rules becomes more clear. Look at the sufficient side ONLY of the conditional statements and the contrapositives, and you should notice that every scenario for J and L is covered (that is, in or out). Following the rules to the logical conclusion, we see that one of J or L is in, and the other is out.

The third rule is pretty straight forward as long as we write out the contrapositive.

The fourth rule is interesting. J or K or L --> G. The contrapositive states: ~G --> ~J and ~K and ~L. If we look back to the first rule, we see that one of J or L must be in. Therefore, G must be in.

That's it. Just rule-drive the rest.

Edit: spelling and clarity.