Prep Test 34 Game 4 Forum

[BillsFan9907]

What's the best way to set this one up. Using Atlas chains seems to work alright, but question 21, asking what is the minimum number of doctors that can be a Souderton, cannot be answered by the chain alone.

[Kurst]

Use of a logic chain and its contrapositive is my preferred method of tackling In/Out games. Birds in the forest (PT33 Game 2) is an In/Out game similar to the fourth game from PT34. Steve Schwartz and Griffon Prep both solve the birds in the forest game by means of the logic chain that I have in mind.

Steve Schwartz (LSAT Blog): http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/lo ... orest.html
Griffon Prep: http://www.griffonprep.com/Birdgamesolution.html

[BillsFan9907]

Wow, this is great. I never thought of it this way.

[EarlCat]

I did this one the other night. I have a different way of approaching it because I don't ever use the chains on in/out games (because sometimes they don't link up as nicely as the birds game). Not sure if this game makes a nice chain or not, but if it doesn't, here's another approach to the setup that helps with the max/min question.

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 6&t=151463

[BillsFan9907]

I agree - sometimes the chains don't link up as nicely as the bird game or PT34 G4... I know the one about the 10 music CDs you can't chain effectively. For that I use an In column and an Out Column according to the Atlas method.

How can you quickly determine when you can chain? Do you have to scan the restrictions and see if all the variables connect to each other?

I was thinking it would be okay even if all didn't link up as long as you don't have doubles (if A and B are in then C is out). If you have doubles then I would just go with the Atlas. If I have singles but they aren't all connected, I think I would be okay having a few broken chains.

Thoughts?

[EarlCat]

I agree - sometimes the chains don't link up as nicely as the bird game or PT34 G4... I know the one about the 10 music CDs you can't chain effectively. For that I use an In column and an Out Column according to the Atlas method.

How can you quickly determine when you can chain? Do you have to scan the restrictions and see if all the variables connect to each other?

I was thinking it would be okay even if all didn't link up as long as you don't have doubles (if A and B are in then C is out). If you have doubles then I would just go with the Atlas. If I have singles but they aren't all connected, I think I would be okay having a few broken chains.

Thoughts?

I just avoid the chains altogether. They're unnecessary. I've got my "in" column, my "out" column, and a list of clues (nothing doubled if possible). That's all you need.

[mac35352]

tag

[leche]

I agree - sometimes the chains don't link up as nicely as the bird game or PT34 G4... I know the one about the 10 music CDs you can't chain effectively. For that I use an In column and an Out Column according to the Atlas method.

How can you quickly determine when you can chain? Do you have to scan the restrictions and see if all the variables connect to each other?

I was thinking it would be okay even if all didn't link up as long as you don't have doubles (if A and B are in then C is out). If you have doubles then I would just go with the Atlas. If I have singles but they aren't all connected, I think I would be okay having a few broken chains.

Thoughts?

I just learned about the chain method. It's been working really, really well so far. But that game with the 10 CDs is kicking my ass. I tried it Powerscore's way first (took me 13:48 and I missed 3) then tried it with chains but it was totally messed up with all the ands/ors. I didn't time that one (I'm sure it was longer than 8:45 though), and the only one I missed was because I stupidly read "maximum" when it should have been "minimum." What is the best way to attack this one? Sidenote: I don't have the Atlas guide for LG, so I'm not sure what that means.

[EarlCat]

I just learned about the chain method. It's been working really, really well so far. But that game with the 10 CDs is kicking my ass. I tried it Powerscore's way first (took me 13:48 and I missed 3) then tried it with chains but it was totally messed up with all the ands/ors. I didn't time that one (I'm sure it was longer than 8:45 though), and the only one I missed was because I stupidly read "maximum" when it should have been "minimum." What is the best way to attack this one? Sidenote: I don't have the Atlas guide for LG, so I'm not sure what that means.

The CD game is a tough one because you have an in out game with both categorization of the elements (new and used) AND repeating elements (there are two pops, two rocks, or whatever they were...I'm going my memory here). Anyway, I make heavy use of the "slot" deduction explained briefly in my post linked above, but instead of labeling the slot with two possible elements, I label it underneath with what category. For instance, you might be able to make a deduction that a New CD has to be in, so I'd make a slot and just label it N (rather than labeling it NP/NR/NS/NJ or whatever).

I don't remember the test numbers, but there's a game about a jeweler putting stones in rings, and a game about parents, teachers, and students on a committee. Those games have the categories without the repetition, and may be better to practice on before tackling this game.

[barnum]

I agree that chaining all in/out games would be a mistake. If it results in too many "branches" caused by lots of ands and ors it can get unwieldy and not very useful. One or two branches isn't a big deal, like in the bird game. That said, I love chaining the doctors game. If done correctly, it doesn't need any branches. This makes answering the question go ridiculously quick. Here is the chain and its contrapositive.

Nr --> Or --> Js --> Kr --> Ps --> Lr

Pr --> Ks --> Jr --> Os --> Ns --> Lr

[av.]

I agree that chaining all in/out games would be a mistake. If it results in too many "branches" caused by lots of ands and ors it can get unwieldy and not very useful. One or two branches isn't a big deal, like in the bird game. That said, I love chaining the doctors game. If done correctly, it doesn't need any branches. This makes answering the question go ridiculously quick. Here is the chain and its contrapositive.

Nr --> Or --> Js --> Kr --> Ps --> Lr

Pr --> Ks --> Jr --> Os --> Ns --> Lr

I found that Rule 3 suggests the impossible:

LS --> NR & PR.

I included this rule in my diagram and recognizing the contradictions I wasted time double checking myself.

Are we supposed to recognize this impossible scenario and conclude "never LS / always LR"? Is that what you've done above?

[proxy]

I agree that chaining all in/out games would be a mistake. If it results in too many "branches" caused by lots of ands and ors it can get unwieldy and not very useful. One or two branches isn't a big deal, like in the bird game. That said, I love chaining the doctors game. If done correctly, it doesn't need any branches. This makes answering the question go ridiculously quick. Here is the chain and its contrapositive.

Nr --> Or --> Js --> Kr --> Ps --> Lr

Pr --> Ks --> Jr --> Os --> Ns --> Lr

I found that Rule 3 suggests the impossible:

LS --> NR & PR.

I included this rule in my diagram and recognizing the contradictions I wasted time double checking myself.

Are we supposed to recognize this impossible scenario and conclude "never LS / always LR"? Is that what you've done above?

My thinking exactly. This is a dirty trick to play. The game is pretty straight forward otherwise, and this can easily be overlooked.

[hallbd16]

I agree that chaining all in/out games would be a mistake. If it results in too many "branches" caused by lots of ands and ors it can get unwieldy and not very useful. One or two branches isn't a big deal, like in the bird game. That said, I love chaining the doctors game. If done correctly, it doesn't need any branches. This makes answering the question go ridiculously quick. Here is the chain and its contrapositive.

Nr --> Or --> Js --> Kr --> Ps --> Lr

Pr --> Ks --> Jr --> Os --> Ns --> Lr

I found that Rule 3 suggests the impossible:

LS --> NR & PR.

I included this rule in my diagram and recognizing the contradictions I wasted time double checking myself.

Are we supposed to recognize this impossible scenario and conclude "never LS / always LR"? Is that what you've done above?

My thinking exactly. This is a dirty trick to play. The game is pretty straight forward otherwise, and this can easily be overlooked.

Yeah, this game is putting a damper in my in/out-- or to some who call them binary-- confidence. Just went through all types of linear games with LG Bible and have that stuff down real good (i.e. under 6min games with 100% accuracy). As I am taking the test December 1st, I am just now making my way through the grouping games with LGB, doesn't feel as smooth nor as fast of a learning curve as the linear games. Any one have thoughts they want to share if you felt the same way.

I realize that there is also the MLSAT LG book and the chain methods spoken of above to look into... I had originally planned to try everything full steam (ie each LG game 3 times) before I start experimenting with different strategies. But this game is making me consider starting to learn supplementary strategies right away. Anyone else currently feel this or did you feel this way at some time?

Suggestions appreciated.

[hallbd16]

Any takers?

[SumStalwart]

Sorry, if I am a little late!

I just did this game in a little over 6 minutes. It would have been tricky if I didn't read the rules carefully.

So.. I used a combination of chains and then doing diagrams as the questions needed. Starting with my initial setup, I wrote down the rules and then made two chains:

1) N=R---->O=R---->J=S---->k=R;
2) P=R---->k&O=S---->J=R.

Once I had these set up, I went straight into the questions.

Since it seems like you are more concerned with answering 21, I am not going to go into the other questions.

This question is asking what is the lowest amount of doctors who can be in Souderton (S). The first thing that I did was draw two columns: S and R. I then went ahead and placed J in the "S" column and O in "R." That means that K must go into R, N and L CAN go into R. The only piece left is P. Can it go into R? According to out chain, it can't go into R, unless both K and O=S. Looking over the chains again, you can see that moving J to R would result in at least 3 in S.

I guess that my advice to you is do an initial setup so that you can understand the premises and then draw diagrams when necessary.

[SumStalwart]

hallbd16, with respect to your question about experimenting with different material, I would consider it. I read the PS LG bible and a lot of the techniques that they used seemed to work out for me, with the exception of writing out potential situations. Since many of the newer LG AC's seem to be focused on local issues (additional information provided in each question), it seemed like a waste of time to diagram a bunch of hypothetical situations that were just going to become irrelevant.

The thing that works for me is getting the general idea, and then going from there. Linking some statements together is beneficial, however, diagramming hypothetical situations, and trying to find ALL of the inferences seems to be a little too time consuming for me.

[hallbd16]

@sumstalwart

Thanks for the input and thoughts. Yeah, I figure it is about time that I tinker with my LG style a little bit. Have been scoring in the -0/1 range for several weeks now, but I want to make sure I haven't left any stone unturned.

[boblawlob]

This took me longer than I had expected..9ish minutes....probably due to my disorganization on the paper.

How do you approach #21? Well I started out with picking the variable that would least affect the rest of the pieces, which was P going to Souderton.

So after that, you get

Souderton: P

Randsborough: L

Then I went for the next variable that wouldn't set off a chain, which was J going to Souderton (If J went to Randsborough, then that would send O and N together to Souderton).

So after that, you get

Souderton: P, J

Randsborough: L, K

Now you have N and O left, which both can go to Randsborough due to (NR ->OR)

(C)

[crate2012]

hallbd16, with respect to your question about experimenting with different material, I would consider it. I read the PS LG bible and a lot of the techniques that they used seemed to work out for me, with the exception of writing out potential situations. Since many of the newer LG AC's seem to be focused on local issues (additional information provided in each question), it seemed like a waste of time to diagram a bunch of hypothetical situations that were just going to become irrelevant.

The thing that works for me is getting the general idea, and then going from there. Linking some statements together is beneficial, however, diagramming hypothetical situations, and trying to find ALL of the inferences seems to be a little too time consuming for me.

I too question scenario approach. If your scenarios exceed 3 in number, it is time consuming to figure out before hitting the questions. For local questions, how do you best approach without scenarios?