Tree Diagram technique no match for PT 1 Games section #18?

User avatar
sdwarrior403
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 8:13 pm

Tree Diagram technique no match for PT 1 Games section #18?

Postby sdwarrior403 » Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:02 pm

I cannot draw a normal tree diagram for #18, with O-M as the new information.

I can see that M will have at least 5 people before it, so you can answer it that way. But can someone post how they are able to draw a tree diagram for #18 without having crazy looking lines? Or is the technique useless for such a consortment of sequences?

User avatar
RCinDNA
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 1:55 pm

Re: Tree Diagram technique no match for PT 1 Games section #18?

Postby RCinDNA » Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:06 pm

PT1 - wow, kicking it old school.

Manhattan LSAT addressed this. Here is their first diagram:
http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/download/file.php?id=463&sid=4fb4126cdab4c568338606317f576411

This is the second diagram after they made their inference:
http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/download/file.php?id=464&sid=4fb4126cdab4c568338606317f576411

Sorry, it's probably cheating since I didn't attempt that PT myself, but it's been a helpful site for me.

User avatar
sdwarrior403
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 8:13 pm

Re: Tree Diagram technique no match for PT 1 Games section #18?

Postby sdwarrior403 » Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:27 pm

Not the right game. I am discussing the third game, a relative ordering pure sequencing game. Number 18 cannot be effectively approached through the use of the tree diagram unless you draw crazy lines somewhere.

I want to see if that sentiment is agreed upon.

User avatar
CyanIdes Of March
Posts: 743
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: Tree Diagram technique no match for PT 1 Games section #18?

Postby CyanIdes Of March » Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:39 pm

I think for these kinds of questions you just have to, like you did, recognize the new limitations and answer accordingly. I'm not sure if there is an optimum way to draw this particular graph to make it look clean, but even if there is it would take some incredibly foresight (maybe impossible?) to make it. I did this one a few days ago and what I did for the tree was erased my J -> M line (which was normal length before #18) and made it much longer so I could make my N > O -> M line connect (going behind I). It wasn't perfect but it was simple enough to get the answer quickly.

User avatar
cahwc12
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:49 pm

Re: Tree Diagram technique no match for PT 1 Games section #18?

Postby cahwc12 » Sat Sep 08, 2012 12:35 am

sdwarrior403 wrote:Not the right game. I am discussing the third game, a relative ordering pure sequencing game. Number 18 cannot be effectively approached through the use of the tree diagram unless you draw crazy lines somewhere.

I want to see if that sentiment is agreed upon.


you shouldn't require anything beyond your initial diagram for this question . Just count the variables that would precede M.... shouldn't take you more than 4-5 seconds for that question.

Insofar as you would diagram it, it'd look maybe something like this:

Image


there's no rule that forbids lines crossing, although they rarely do.

edit: or draw it this way I guess if you can't compute lines crossing:
Image
This still doesn't preclude the possibility that G could precede O and/or M.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 34iplaw, bcapace, lawcapture, mrgstephe, njames1961, theGrinch, Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests