Pure Sequencing problem (PT 48, Section 2, Game 2) Forum

[honestabe84]

For some reason I'm not getting this one. Pure sequencing games have always come very easy to me, but this one I'm having trouble with.

Does anyone have an efficient way of setting this game up? I usually don't use "not laws" for these types of games and instead just use a bunch symbols (>, <, dotted lines, and circles) the way powerscore suggests. Basically, what I'm wondering is whether or not it is necessary to to use not laws in this game.

[skip james]

Use a tree diagram. They're way better than powerscore's method. You could learn it for free here:

http://www.atlaslsat.com/download/lg_book_excerpt.pdf

I do, however, disagree on a minor point, which is that atlas does tree diagram horizontally sometimes, but I always do my tree diagrams vertically. They just appear more intuitive to me that way.

[yoni45]

Really? I strictly do it horizontally (it aligns with the setup that way?) -- why the preference for a vertical setup...?

Use a tree diagram. They're way better than powerscore's method. You could learn it for free here:

http://www.atlaslsat.com/download/lg_book_excerpt.pdf

I do, however, disagree on a minor point, which is that atlas does tree diagram horizontally sometimes, but I always do my tree diagrams vertically. They just appear more intuitive to me that way.

[skip james]

Really? I strictly do it horizontally (it aligns with the setup that way?) -- why the preference for a vertical setup...?

I think it came down to a single practical aspect of doing it vertically. I will always have room to do a hypothetical in the margin next to a question without the hypothetical running into the question itself or the answer choices.

And there's something to the intuitive aspect of it, I think, since the brain tends to organize hierarchy by height. Like, in the Olympics, first place is a step higher than second and so forth. It always made more sense to me to diagram a relationship like 'faster' or 'slower' or 'better' or 'sooner' in terms of a vertical relationship.

[yoni45]

Hmm, well, it seems like we use differing setup methods as well, so the horizontal approach wouldn't necessarily be as conducive to yours as it would to mine...

(I would also argue that things that certain ordered things, like days of the week, are generally put up left to right... =D)

I think it came down to a single practical aspect of doing it vertically. I will always have room to do a hypothetical in the margin next to a question without the hypothetical running into the question itself or the answer choices.

And there's something to the intuitive aspect of it, I think, since the brain tends to organize hierarchy by height. Like, in the Olympics, first place is a step higher than second and so forth. It always made more sense to me to diagram a relationship like 'faster' or 'slower' or 'better' or 'sooner' in terms of a vertical relationship.

[skip james]

Hmm, well, it seems like we use differing setup methods as well, so the horizontal approach wouldn't necessarily be as conducive to yours as it would to mine...

(I would also argue that things that certain ordered things, like days of the week, are generally put up left to right... =D)

I think it came down to a single practical aspect of doing it vertically. I will always have room to do a hypothetical in the margin next to a question without the hypothetical running into the question itself or the answer choices.

And there's something to the intuitive aspect of it, I think, since the brain tends to organize hierarchy by height. Like, in the Olympics, first place is a step higher than second and so forth. It always made more sense to me to diagram a relationship like 'faster' or 'slower' or 'better' or 'sooner' in terms of a vertical relationship.

that's true...

but since we're using a tree, might I point out that trees grow upwards. =)

[yoni45]

that's true...

but since we're using a tree, might I point out that trees grow upwards. =)

Fortunately, I refer to it as an elastic band... =P

[honestabe84]

After experimenting with the tree diagram, I think I still prefer Powerscore's method.

I still don't know, however, how to set this game up. I was beginning to think this is actually a basic-linear game, but Powerscore classifies it as pure sequencing. Can any help me efficiently link the inferences?

[Cambridge LSAT]

It's considered pure sequencing because the rules relate the variables only to each other, and not to any particular positions. Many games of this type involve placing the variables into linear slots once you get to the questions, so there's typically always an element of linearity.

[honestabe84]

It's considered pure sequencing because the rules relate the variables only to each other, and not to any particular positions. Many games of this type involve placing the variables into linear slots once you get to the questions, so there's typically always an element of linearity.

Thanks!

[shoop]

Use a tree diagram. They're way better than powerscore's method. You could learn it for free here:

http://www.atlaslsat.com/download/lg_book_excerpt.pdf

I do, however, disagree on a minor point, which is that atlas does tree diagram horizontally sometimes, but I always do my tree diagrams vertically. They just appear more intuitive to me that way.

I know this post is old news, but THANK YOU. I've been using Powerscore and this question repeatedly kicked my ass both in practice and when I used the LG section from PT48 as the experimental on a full run of a later PT. I just tried it again with the Atlas method and aced it in under 5 minutes.

[skip james]

Use a tree diagram. They're way better than powerscore's method. You could learn it for free here:

http://www.atlaslsat.com/download/lg_book_excerpt.pdf

I do, however, disagree on a minor point, which is that atlas does tree diagram horizontally sometimes, but I always do my tree diagrams vertically. They just appear more intuitive to me that way.

I know this post is old news, but THANK YOU. I've been using Powerscore and this question repeatedly kicked my ass both in practice and when I used the LG section from PT48 as the experimental on a full run of a later PT. I just tried it again with the Atlas method and aced it in under 5 minutes.

no problem. if you want to really challenge your pure sequencing skills, i think there's a tricky pure sequencing game from the superprep series. the conditional rules challenges your ability to understand the full implications of the rules, so be wary.