LSAT 'logic game'! Forum

[Eberry]

I diagrammed and compiled the answer before fully understanding the rules (i.e. That it should be attempted without writing anything down).

The setup was relatively simple, albeit large, and, once it is setup properly, everything falls into place.


Still, it was relatively fun (and, as I say this, I realize I've been at this LSAT stuff too long).

[PeanutsNJam]

Can't or won't?
I probably could do it in my head, but why go through the effort?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome

Right... you have not achieved what prodigious savants have simply because you "won't", not because you "can't". You could calculate the approximate time it would take for a non-uniform object such as a HP printer to land and exactly where it lands when it's dropped from a commercial passenger plane moving at 345.675 mph at 12984.56 ft in the air over the equator in your head, you would just prefer not to, right?

I don't even think you could solve the above problem in your head.

I was expecting this.
Won't.

I used to do logic puzzles all the time when I was younger. Practice makes one better at it. When I got to the point that I could solve even the hardest puzzles every time, I started doing them in my head (without scratch paper of any kind) by way of challenge. So, having done these kinds of puzzles in my head before, I see no reason why I can't now.
I can tell you it's a learnable skill. Most people when they first attempt a logic puzzle are struggling, but after some practice can do fairly well. Now imagine doing these puzzles regularly for a few years - they become second nature.

Same with doing puzzles, math or chess in your head - the more you practice, the better you become.

In my opinion people above a certain threshold of ability can learn to do these kinds of puzzles in their head, no extra-special skill required

The limiting factor isn't intellect or skill, it's memorization capabilities. Puzzles become so complex to one point that an average human being's short term memory is incapable of retaining all the information. Can a person do a rubix cube blindfolded in under a minute after looking at it for a bit? Yes, it's on youtube. (Although, I'm 99% sure this girl uses a series of algorithms that she pre-plans as she looks at it and doesn't simply remember ever single face. Meaning, you could stop her mid-solve and she probably wouldn't be able to tell you the exact colors on each face.) In short, you can learn to do a repeatable logic puzzle in your head, such as chess or sudoku. But if somebody were to pull out a complex logic puzzle out of their ass that does not resemble anything you've ever seen before, I'd bet my kidney you couldn't do it in your head.

Again, on the internet, you can claim to have any ability within reason. You really have nothing to gain by attempting to prove that you are somehow a genius at puzzles. Refer to #10 in --LinkRemoved-- .

[dingbat]

^unfortunately, I can no longer solve a rubik's cube.
Never tried it blindfolded, but I could do it in under 2 minutes and only glancing occasionally (the solution revolves around a series of sequential movements - muscle memory plays a big part)

However, the fact that you would doubt its possible to do blindfolded shows me that you just don't understand

[PeanutsNJam]

^unfortunately, I can no longer solve a rubik's cube.
Never tried it blindfolded, but I could do it in under 2 minutes and only glancing occasionally (the solution revolves around a series of sequential movements - muscle memory plays a big part)

However, the fact that you would doubt its possible to do blindfolded shows me that you just don't understand

I didn't doubt it's possible to do it blindfolded. I said there's a youtube video with a girl who does it blindfolded in under a minute. I doubted that you can do it blindfolded, be stopped 25 seconds into your solve, and remember the exact placement of each color.

I said the girl probably pre-planned her algorithms (which in the case of a rubix cube, is a series of sequential movements).

The fact that you're completely off the mark about what I said show that you just don't read.

[bbsg]

It really does just fall into place. I reached a "Well this could be either this, this, or this" situation at the beginning and decided to just diagram all three options until one worked. The first one worked so I didn't need to check the others. The result is that the whole thing only took about 2 minutes after you spend the 4 or 5 minutes listing out the inventory and creating the setup. LSAT game questions are routinely more difficult -- nothing to infer here. Just plug & play.

It was fun though! Thanks OP! Pleasant distraction from real work.

[Scotusnerd]

It really does just fall into place. I reached a "Well this could be either this, this, or this" situation at the beginning and decided to just diagram all three options until one worked. The first one worked so I didn't need to check the others. The result is that the whole thing only took about 2 minutes after you spend the 4 or 5 minutes listing out the inventory and creating the setup. LSAT game questions are routinely more difficult -- nothing to infer here. Just plug & play.

It was fun though! Thanks OP! Pleasant distraction from real work.

Np. Glad you enjoyed it.

[bp shinners]

This was proven as not to be something that Einstein is associated with (though I'm too lazy to Google it).

However, the original is only 2% of the population can do it IN THEIR HEADS (i.e. without writing anything down). That's the real challenge.

I'm sure anybody can come up with a mathematical problem that a savant can do in his head while an average man can't. Then, calculate the percentage of the population that is savants, and herp-a-derp-derp-sherp, a problem that only X% of the population can do! (X being a small number).

I meant the original challenged you to solve it in your head, not that I thought that was a challenge that put you in the top 2%.

That being said, first time I saw this, I was an arrogant teenager, so I went through it in my head. I think it took me like 22 minutes, or something like that.

[boblawlob]

This was proven as not to be something that Einstein is associated with (though I'm too lazy to Google it).

However, the original is only 2% of the population can do it IN THEIR HEADS (i.e. without writing anything down). That's the real challenge.

I'm sure anybody can come up with a mathematical problem that a savant can do in his head while an average man can't. Then, calculate the percentage of the population that is savants, and herp-a-derp-derp-sherp, a problem that only X% of the population can do! (X being a small number).

I meant the original challenged you to solve it in your head, not that I thought that was a challenge that put you in the top 2%.

That being said, first time I saw this, I was an arrogant teenager, so I went through it in my head. I think it took me like 22 minutes, or something like that.

Which is more impressive? Solving it in 10 minutes using pencil and paper or 22 mins mentally?

Not a serious question but still would be interesting to know which one people would pick.

[Mal Reynolds]

Nobody owns the fish, because no fish is mentioned in the hints.

This is stupid. The question is who CAN own the fish. There's only one person who can once you solve the riddle. It doesn't matter if the fish wasn't mentioned.

[facile princeps]

It's easy (relative to some LSAT games) when diagrammed. Would be a bitch to do in your head. I'd have to be paid for that.

[sama]

I got it but I doubt only 2% can do this.

[bbobby12]

Maybe 2% of all the people in the world, but no way its 2% of all the intelligent people in the world. How would you even categorize "intelligent" people to do such a study?

[dingbat]

Nobody owns the fish, because no fish is mentioned in the hints.

This is stupid. The question is who CAN own the fish. There's only one person who can once you solve the riddle. It doesn't matter if the fish wasn't mentioned.

Woosh

[BrianP]

"This is stupid. The question is who CAN own the fish. There's only one person who can once you solve the riddle. It doesn't matter if the fish wasn't mentioned."


"THE QUESTION: WHO OWNS THE FISH?"

My guess? No friggin' clue. Dude with the cat?

I don't even know what to do to try and solve it. This is probably why I suck at logic games?

[PeanutsNJam]

How to diagram? Draw a grid. Treat it like a sudoku puzzle. Plug n' chug.

I think what people are trying to point out is this question isn't well made for the following reasons:

- Did not specify that someone owns the fish. Did not specify that each owner can have a maximum of 1 pet.
- Claims to have been made by Einstein while it was not.
- Claims to be solvable by only an extreme minority of "intelligent" people. It's a simple puzzle; no harder than a "medium" level sudoku puzzle.
- Is inferior to many difficult logic games.

It's likes saying:

Einstein came up with a math problem that only 2% of the population can solve without a calculator!

12395870869871235609182375091283751023785612903875612035 x 90876098617230987013612365871236951273695182735 = ?

No... maybe only 2% of the population will solve it.

Author of the puzzle thinks he's smart. He's not.

[Scotusnerd]

- Did not specify that someone owns the fish. Did not specify that each owner can have a maximum of 1 pet.

It clearly specifies that each owner owns a different pet, smokes a different beverage etc. This is reading comprehension. Read the problem instead of the wikipedia article.

- Claims to have been made by Einstein while it was not.

Do you care who made a puzzle? Because I don't when I'm solving it. Maybe I'm just different, but I'm more interested in having fun and solving it than figuring out who made the thing.

- Claims to be solvable by only an extreme minority of "intelligent" people. It's a simple puzzle; no harder than a "medium" level sudoku puzzle.

You're offended by the fact that it's not good enough for you?

- Is inferior to many difficult logic games.

So what?

Questioning the credibility of the problem does nothing but demonstrate that you have a piss-poor attitude. Use those analytical skills you've learned on something worthwhile, because it isn't going to get you brownie points at the water cooler.

You guys want to play a piss war over the authenticity of a problem posted for entertainment purposes, feel free. I'm going to go out and have a beer.

[arae13]

Ok, quick quiz for y'all that think you are good at LSAT logic games. No time limit. Einstein came up with this one back in the 19th century. He said that 98% of the world's population couldn't answer it. Check it out:

ALBERT EINSTEIN'S RIDDLE

ARE YOU IN THE TOP 2% OF INTELLIGENT PEOPLE IN THE WORLD? SOLVE THE RIDDLE AND FIND OUT.

There are no tricks, just pure logic, so good luck and don't give up.

1. In a street there are five houses, painted five different colours.
2. In each house lives a person of different nationality
3. These five homeowners each drink a different kind of beverage, smoke different brand of cigar and keep a different pet.

THE QUESTION: WHO OWNS THE FISH?

HINTS

1. The Brit lives in a red house.
2. The Swede keeps dogs as pets.
3. The Dane drinks tea.
4. The Green house is next to, and on the left of the White house.
5. The owner of the Green house drinks coffee.
6. The person who smokes Pall Mall rears birds.
7. The owner of the Yellow house smokes Dunhill.
8. The man living in the centre house drinks milk.
9. The Norwegian lives in the first house.
10. The man who smokes Blends lives next to the one who keeps cats.
11. The man who keeps horses lives next to the man who smokes Dunhill.
12. The man who smokes Blue Master drinks beer.
13. The German smokes Prince.
14. The Norwegian lives next to the blue house.
15. The man who smokes Blends has a neighbour who drinks water.



Please don't post the answer in this topic! If you want to check if you're correct, google Einstein's Riddle.

Disappointing.... New and Used CDs was harder than this...

I lol'd.

+1

[Yardbird]

12395870869871235609182375091283751023785612903875612035 x 90876098617230987013612365871236951273695182735 = ?

Do you not like the number 4?

Silliness aside, it was an easy puzzle. I would not classify it as a logic game just because it's a riddle that takes time to solve (took me about 12-15 minutes to do out the grid).

[PeanutsNJam]

- Did not specify that someone owns the fish. Did not specify that each owner can have a maximum of 1 pet.

It clearly specifies that each owner owns a different pet, smokes a different beverage etc. This is reading comprehension. Read the problem instead of the wikipedia article.

- Claims to have been made by Einstein while it was not.

Do you care who made a puzzle? Because I don't when I'm solving it. Maybe I'm just different, but I'm more interested in having fun and solving it than figuring out who made the thing.

- Claims to be solvable by only an extreme minority of "intelligent" people. It's a simple puzzle; no harder than a "medium" level sudoku puzzle.

You're offended by the fact that it's not good enough for you?

- Is inferior to many difficult logic games.

So what?

Questioning the credibility of the problem does nothing but demonstrate that you have a piss-poor attitude. Use those analytical skills you've learned on something worthwhile, because it isn't going to get you brownie points at the water cooler.

You guys want to play a piss war over the authenticity of a problem posted for entertainment purposes, feel free. I'm going to go out and have a beer.

What fantastic argumentative capabilities you have there! You should write those "flaw" questions for LSAC. I treat these things like LSAT practice anyway:

- I do not care who made the puzzle. You employed a scope-shift argument here. My argument was that whoever made this puzzle claims that it was made by Einstein. I could care less who actually made it; what I was talking about was the fraudulent message that is typed in all caps.

- I pointed out the puzzle's lack of difficulty as evidence of my previous point. The key assumption that is required for your argument to hold is that I am offended when I am posed with a problem that isn't challenging. This is a false assumption; I would be overjoyed if all my exams in college were not "good enough for me."

- It can be inferred from your conclusion that you believe your puzzle is "something worthwhile" while doing logic games and scoring well on the LSAT is not. You again employ scope shift in introducing the water cooler, which is synonymous in this case with "social life." You're no different from the guy who whines when a guy knifes him in an FPS by saying how that guy has no friends.

Scope shift, brutha. If you don't stay on point in an argument, you're gonna have a tough time with LR sections (tough time getting -0).

[Scotusnerd]

What fantastic argumentative capabilities you have there! You should write those "flaw" questions for LSAC. I treat these things like LSAT practice anyway:

- I do not care who made the puzzle. You employed a scope-shift argument here. My argument was that whoever made this puzzle claims that it was made by Einstein. I could care less who actually made it; what I was talking about was the fraudulent message that is typed in all caps.

- I pointed out the puzzle's lack of difficulty as evidence of my previous point. The key assumption that is required for your argument to hold is that I am offended when I am posed with a problem that isn't challenging. This is a false assumption; I would be overjoyed if all my exams in college were not "good enough for me."

- It can be inferred from your conclusion that you believe your puzzle is "something worthwhile" while doing logic games and scoring well on the LSAT is not. You again employ scope shift in introducing the water cooler, which is synonymous in this case with "social life."

Scope shift, brutha. If you don't stay on point in an argument, you're gonna have a tough time with LR sections (tough time getting -0).

[Nova]

Scope shift, brutha. If you don't stay on point in an argument, you're gonna have a tough time with LR sections (tough time getting -0).

Scotusnerd already took the LSAT and did well.

12395870869871235609182375091283751023785612903875612035 x 90876098617230987013612365871236951273695182735 = ?

Do you not like the number 4?

Lol nice catch. Random.