PT 40 - Soup Ingredients LG Forum

[Easy-E]

Hello guys. I have a question in regards to both a specific question, and secondly, to a general idea. In PT40(June2003), their is a linear game involving soup ingredients. If you don't have a copy of it, heres a link to the Manhattan page to refresh your memory: http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/post7774.html sid=81a417100ff04fb318b3106b36b069db#p7774


My problem is with question 5, and my question is if you've created a hypothetical with more than one answer choice included, and it turns out to violate the rules, whats the best way to determine which condition (answer choice) is causing the problem? Obviously the best way would be to do each condition seperately, although I suppose this would take a bit longer. What confuses me is the diagram shown there, where A-C-E are all eliminated in one hypothetical. I understand WHY the hypothetical works, but I don't understand how you can suddenly determine to include all three, and not risk wasting a big chunk of time if one doesnt work.


Let me know if this is confusing and I'll try again

[Manhattan LSAT Noah]

I think the way that walk through "went down" is that the hypothetical created for A turned out to eliminate other answer choices. I wouldn't recommend trying to build more than one answer into a hypothetical, for the reason you've mentioned. However, if you make a hypothetical, and you see some elements that could switch places, indicate that so that your hypothetical covers more than one situation.

I think I solved that question differently, let me chew on it for a second.

...yeah, I just did it like this:

If Z is first, hmm, what can I infer? So, I know that L must be before O, so L can't be last, so M can't be third. Who is left? (this is one of the most important questions to ask when solving a lot of conditional questions). K-M-T or T-M-K is left. Any restrictions on that? Yeah, M can't go 3rd (as that would force L last). So, M can go in slots 4 or 5.

Seems like a lot of options after that, so from there, I start evaluating answer choices:

(A) I don't see a problem. Defer judgment, look for an obvious answer.
(B) I don't see a problem. Defer judgment, look for an obvious answer.

Oh, yeah, K and T are the same element (no rules are different about them, so A and B are the same answer.

(C) this leaves plenty of room for O and M K/T
(D) this looks suspicious - slow down. With L back there, where would we fit M, O, K/T?

Pull the trigger.

With this sort of question, going into hypotheticals is appropriate if you're not feeling comfortable manipulating the elements in your head (after you've laid out the basic situation and inferences suggested by the new condition). I think a "lazier" approach works faster here.

I hope that helps.

[Easy-E]

I think the way that walk through "went down" is that the hypothetical created for A turned out to eliminate other answer choices. I wouldn't recommend trying to build more than one answer into a hypothetical, for the reason you've mentioned. However, if you make a hypothetical, and you see some elements that could switch places, indicate that so that your hypothetical covers more than one situation.

I think I solved that question differently, let me chew on it for a second.

...yeah, I just did it like this:

If Z is first, hmm, what can I infer? So, I know that L must be before O, so L can't be last, so M can't be third. Who is left? (this is one of the most important questions to ask when solving a lot of conditional questions). K-M-T or T-M-K is left. Any restrictions on that? Yeah, M can't go 3rd (as that would force L last). So, M can go in slots 4 or 5.

Seems like a lot of options after that, so from there, I start evaluating answer choices:

(A) I don't see a problem. Defer judgment, look for an obvious answer.
(B) I don't see a problem. Defer judgment, look for an obvious answer.

Oh, yeah, K and T are the same element (no rules are different about them, so A and B are the same answer.

(C) this leaves plenty of room for O and M K/T
(D) this looks suspicious - slow down. With L back there, where would we fit M, O, K/T?

Pull the trigger.

With this sort of question, going into hypotheticals is appropriate if you're not feeling comfortable manipulating the elements in your head (after you've laid out the basic situation and inferences suggested by the new condition). I think a "lazier" approach works faster here.

I hope that helps.

This clears it up, thank you very much.

[EarlCat]

I think the way that walk through "went down" is that the hypothetical created for A turned out to eliminate other answer choices. I wouldn't recommend trying to build more than one answer into a hypothetical, for the reason you've mentioned. However, if you make a hypothetical, and you see some elements that could switch places, indicate that so that your hypothetical covers more than one situation.

I think I solved that question differently, let me chew on it for a second.

...yeah, I just did it like this:

If Z is first, hmm, what can I infer? So, I know that L must be before O, so L can't be last, so M can't be third. Who is left? (this is one of the most important questions to ask when solving a lot of conditional questions). K-M-T or T-M-K is left. Any restrictions on that? Yeah, M can't go 3rd (as that would force L last). So, M can go in slots 4 or 5.

Seems like a lot of options after that, so from there, I start evaluating answer choices:

(A) I don't see a problem. Defer judgment, look for an obvious answer.
(B) I don't see a problem. Defer judgment, look for an obvious answer.

Oh, yeah, K and T are the same element (no rules are different about them, so A and B are the same answer.

(C) this leaves plenty of room for O and M K/T
(D) this looks suspicious - slow down. With L back there, where would we fit M, O, K/T?

Pull the trigger.

With this sort of question, going into hypotheticals is appropriate if you're not feeling comfortable manipulating the elements in your head (after you've laid out the basic situation and inferences suggested by the new condition). I think a "lazier" approach works faster here.

I hope that helps.

Yeah, the placement of O in the hypo just seems serendipitous. They could have easily dropped it in 5 and failed to eliminate C. L going in 3, on the other hand, is forced when you try K in 1 (and for reasons which ought to clue us in that L can't be 4th).

Your way was much more systematic than the example.