PT 35, Section 3, Q 18-23

User avatar
flem
Posts: 12949
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:44 pm

PT 35, Section 3, Q 18-23

Postby flem » Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:04 pm

What is this I don't even

Does anyone have a diagram they could show me? Manhattan's is SPS on their website.

I used the professors as the base with a line for year and a second stack for the vague "specialty" (which is unspecific). What is this? I don't even know where to begin.

TYIA

VasaVasori
Posts: 573
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:36 pm

.

Postby VasaVasori » Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:29 pm

.
Last edited by VasaVasori on Sat May 02, 2015 10:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
cc.celina
Posts: 602
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 1:17 pm

Re: PT 35, Section 3, Q 18-23

Postby cc.celina » Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:30 pm

FTR Vasa and I have identical diagrams. And I'm really bad at taking pictures of things and uploading them to the internet.

Oscar85
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 2:53 pm

Re: PT 35, Section 3, Q 18-23

Postby Oscar85 » Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:36 pm

VasaVasori wrote:Here's my diagram:

Image

I used the years for the base (if there's ever ordered numbers, I almost always use them for the base).

The specialty only matters when it overlaps, so it's not important to keep track of who has what specialty, but rather who shares the specialties (I don't think you'd be able to integrate this into the diagram easily, anyway, because it doesn't really tell you what the specialties are).

Hope this helps!

And just for reference, this is my favorite game of all time. There are only three possibilities once you get the deductions worked out.

Yep, this is true right here. It's a basic ordering game, and all you have to do is keep track of who can't be in the same year/can't be next to each other. After that the game is extremely limited.

User avatar
mindarmed
Posts: 959
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 2:16 pm

Re: PT 35, Section 3, Q 18-23

Postby mindarmed » Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:37 pm

You got it, brah:

Information we do know:

Professors hired in the same or consecutive years do not have a specialty in common.
From this little tidbit, we know that two or more professors can be hired in the same year so long as they do not share a specialty with each other.

We are given that M is hired in 93, R in 91.
M,O,T all have one specialty in common. So we know that O and T cannot be hired in 92, 93 or 94.
N shares a specialty with R so we know that N cannot be hired in either 90, 91, or 92.
We are then given that P and S were each hired at least one year before M and at least one year after N. From our previous not laws, we can deduce that N must have been hired in 89 with P and S both being hired somewhere from 90 to 92.
The last piece of information we are given is that O is hired in 90 and shares a specialty with S, so S cannot be hired in either 89, 90, or 91.

Image

Here's the diagram. If you need help with the questions let me know.

ETA: Scooped, with a better diagram...my diagrams are usually poor because I am very good at LG.
Last edited by mindarmed on Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:41 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Nova
Posts: 9116
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: PT 35, Section 3, Q 18-23

Postby Nova » Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:37 pm

Vasas diagram is perfect. The specialties are just "not rules". The rules deduce everything except where P is.

User avatar
flem
Posts: 12949
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:44 pm

Re: PT 35, Section 3, Q 18-23

Postby flem » Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:47 pm

I guess I missed the part where each year could only be used once - eg, two bros can't get hired in 1990 or something.

Sidenote: I'm really fucking tired today and I think it's having a noticeably negative effect on shit that I'm usually fine with. Thanks all.

User avatar
mindarmed
Posts: 959
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 2:16 pm

Re: PT 35, Section 3, Q 18-23

Postby mindarmed » Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:50 pm

flem wrote:I guess I missed the part where each year could only be used once - eg, two bros can't get hired in 1990 or something.

Sidenote: I'm really fucking tired today and I think it's having a noticeably negative effect on shit that I'm usually fine with. Thanks all.


What do you mean? Two bros can certainly be hired in the same year, that's why choice C is credited on question 18.

User avatar
flem
Posts: 12949
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:44 pm

Re: PT 35, Section 3, Q 18-23

Postby flem » Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:52 pm

I'm going to have to look at this tomorrow, as I currently seem unable to comprehend anything right now. :|

User avatar
flem
Posts: 12949
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:44 pm

Re: PT 35, Section 3, Q 18-23

Postby flem » Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:47 pm

So I'm still not getting this.

User avatar
flem
Posts: 12949
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:44 pm

Re: PT 35, Section 3, Q 18-23

Postby flem » Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:55 pm

Maybe I kind of do. I fucking hate this game and I'm not sure why. I finished it with a waklthrough and I think I see it.

Will try again tomorrow.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexandros, cherrygalore and 10 guests