PT36, Game 3 - "Seats on School Bus' Forum

[Easy-E]

I was told this was a difficult game going into it, and I'll be honest, it didn't disappoint! I was able to make two extremely open frames, the main complication being that almost all the initial rules are conditional. I'm still early enough in my prep that I'm just doing untimed games otherwise I would have been screwed here. I managed to get 14, 17, and 18 with relative ease, but as for 15 and 16, I'm stumped as to how to answer these without having to draw multiple hypos for each answer...is there a more effective plan of attack for these kinds of questions? I'll put as much as I got below, but it seems like their has to be a more practical system. 15 I had no ideas for, so heres what I got done for 16...



16. If M=1 then which must be true?

So I'll go through my approach...

First I drew the three hypotheticals where M is in Row 1

Window/Aisle
K M
I G <----This one is ruled invalid by the contrapositive of the rule "If K(W) then M(3)". Waste of time I guess?
L H

So M must be in the Window seat...

M G
_ H
_ _


M _
_ G
_ H


...and then I totally lost my train of thought and got frustrated. I just can't put the conditional rules together to find the answers for these questions. Please, I'd appreciate any help!

[Kurst]

So M must be in the Window seat...

M G
_ H
_ _


M _
_ G
_ H

Consider the fourth rule: if K occupies a window seat, Moore sits in row 3. You know that Moore is sitting in row 1, so you also know that K occupies an aisle seat. Try to put K into both of the frames above, in the aisle seat that you know K must occupy:

M G
_ H
_ K

M K
_ G
_ H

The first frame violates the fifth rule: K is sitting in row 3, but there is no seat in row 1 for I. Now you know that you're working only with the second frame, yet none of the rules offers further guidance. This is all you know:

M K
L/I G
I/L H

By the way, Noah's reindeer game is very similar to this game. I wrote an explanation for that game; it may help you with this sort of grouping game.

[510Chicken]

15. You don't really need to draw hypos out since the incorrect answers can be eliminated with a relatively straight forward application of the rules. It's helpful, however, to know that Rule 3 (K next to G) has only one solution, but that's an inference you can make before you even start solving any of the questions, so...

B) I in the window (W= I, K, L) means M must be in the aisle and in row 3 (K in window). Rule 2 means that L must be next to H. Which leaves K next to G. K-G produces only one possible solution:
KG
IH
ML
This isn't that, so it's incorrect.

C) Again, KG has only one solution. And that solution has L in the aisle, which it's not.

D) Because K is in the window, M must be in row 3. G can't be in row 3.

E) Rule 2. Since L is by the window, M must be in the aisle (and in row 3). M in the aisle means L must be next to H. It can't be if it's next to M.

16. You just need to toss in the last rule. If K is in row 3, then I is in row 1.
K must be in the aisle (If in the window, then M is locked 3 -> fail). This means that the blank in your last two hypos should have K in the aisle.
If K is in 3, G must also be 1 (as you diagrammed it). M, I (as per the rule), and G cannot all occupy row 1
So K must be in 1 with M. Hence (D).

[Kurst]

E) Rule 2. Since L is by the window, M must be in the aisle (and in row 3). M in the aisle means L must be next to H. It can't be if it's next to M.

When L occupies a window seat, why must M be in the aisle? What is wrong with this hypothetical?

K I
L G
M H

[510Chicken]

E) Rule 2. Since L is by the window, M must be in the aisle (and in row 3). M in the aisle means L must be next to H. It can't be if it's next to M.

When L occupies a window seat, why must M be in the aisle? What is wrong with this hypothetical?

K I
L G
M H

Eh. Answer (E) say that M is in the same row as L. If L is in the window seat of the row (given), M must be in the aisle seat of the row. That's the reason for the last two sentences of my response. Given that condition, your hypo is impossible. And so is any other reasonable hypo given only the initial conditions, which is why that selection is wrong.

[Easy-E]

Consider the fourth rule: if K occupies a window seat, Moore sits in row 3. You know that Moore is sitting in row 1, so you also know that K occupies an aisle seat. Try to put K into both of the frames above, in the aisle seat that you know K must occupy:

M G
_ H
_ K

M K
_ G
_ H

The first frame violates the fifth rule: K is sitting in row 3, but there is no seat in row 1 for I. Now you know that you're working only with the second frame, yet none of the rules offers further guidance. This is all you know:

M K
L/I G
I/L H

By the way, Noah's reindeer game is very similar to this game. I wrote an explanation for that game; it may help you with this sort of grouping game.

This really helps me a great deal. I just tried a similar game provided by Steve on the LSAT Blog, and faired much better by keeping all the conditional statements in mind, I'll be sure to give the Reindeer Game a shot too.


How common are these types of games where you really can't draw any big saving inference from the start, and just need to apply the rules to each question? It seems like more than one on a single exam would ruin someone.

[Easy-E]

15. You don't really need to draw hypos out since the incorrect answers can be eliminated with a relatively straight forward application of the rules. It's helpful, however, to know that Rule 3 (K next to G) has only one solution, but that's an inference you can make before you even start solving any of the questions, so...

B) I in the window (W= I, K, L) means M must be in the aisle and in row 3 (K in window). Rule 2 means that L must be next to H. Which leaves K next to G. K-G produces only one possible solution:
KG
IH
ML
This isn't that, so it's incorrect.

C) Again, KG has only one solution. And that solution has L in the aisle, which it's not.

D) Because K is in the window, M must be in row 3. G can't be in row 3.

E) Rule 2. Since L is by the window, M must be in the aisle (and in row 3). M in the aisle means L must be next to H. It can't be if it's next to M.

Ahh okay I understand now. I guess I just got lost trying to jump from conditional to conditional, but now it seems so easy reading this. Question about A though, since its only a "Could be true" question, could their be a quicker route where you just find a possible set-up with M in aisle seat row 3? Or were you just showing me why the others were wrong for clarification?

[510Chicken]

Ahh okay I understand now. I guess I just got lost trying to jump from conditional to conditional, but now it seems so easy reading this. Question about A though, since its only a "Could be true" question, could their be a quicker route where you just find a possible set-up with M in aisle seat row 3? Or were you just showing me why the others were wrong for clarification?

I generally check the answers straight down. If (A) looked good at first glance, I would have just cleared it with a quick hypo and moved on. So yes, the other answers were explanatory, but, in fairness, that's how I would have looked at it if the correct response hadn't come first.

For "could be true" questions, I always found the distinction between using hypos and not a little fuzzy. It was more a question of how well I could hold the rules in my head. Since the flaws in these answers were pretty straight forward I didn't diagram them. In other situations, had the relationships been trickier or a big inference necessary, I might have. Then again, I panicked a little on the real test and basically hypo'd half the snowplows questions, so what do I know?

Either way, I'm sure other people have much more reliable/efficient methods of dealing with these questions.

[Easy-E]

Ahh okay I understand now. I guess I just got lost trying to jump from conditional to conditional, but now it seems so easy reading this. Question about A though, since its only a "Could be true" question, could their be a quicker route where you just find a possible set-up with M in aisle seat row 3? Or were you just showing me why the others were wrong for clarification?

I generally check the answers straight down. If (A) looked good at first glance, I would have just cleared it with a quick hypo and moved on. So yes, the other answers were explanatory, but, in fairness, that's how I would have looked at it if the correct response hadn't come first.

For "could be true" questions, I always found the distinction between using hypos and not a little fuzzy. It was more a question of how well I could hold the rules in my head. Since the flaws in these answers were pretty straight forward I didn't diagram them. In other situations, had the relationships been trickier or a big inference necessary, I might have. Then again, I panicked a little on the real test and basically hypo'd half the snowplows questions, so what do I know?

Either way, I'm sure other people have much more reliable/efficient methods of dealing with these questions.

Well either way, your response was very helpful. The idea of keeping the ideas in mind and applying them to the choices seems to work well for a question like this, rather than drawing out multiple frames for every question.

[Jeffort]

How common are these types of games where you really can't draw any big saving inference from the start, and just need to apply the rules to each question? It seems like more than one on a single exam would ruin someone.

This game is pretty sucky due to it being very question by question rule driven rather than one where finding several key global deductions during set-up lets you easily wipe out the questions.

The complexity/unusual nature of the given conditional rules, along with the amount of question by question hypo/trial and error work required to get those 5 points just ads more insult to injury with this one since there are not any big time saving set-up deductions to be found to expedite solving the questions.

Games that are much more question by question rule application/context deduction driven rather than global set-up deduction oriented in terms of where in the process you have to put in more analysis work to solve the questions are not rare.

I agree, getting two 'have to mainly fight it out brute force with the rules question by question' games in the same section could/would easily destroy many people on test day. In tests that have had two games that were both much more question by question rule application oriented than major set-up deduction oriented, one of the two has typically been fairly easy in terms of not having to dig all that deep and work super hard to solve the questions.

[Easy-E]

How common are these types of games where you really can't draw any big saving inference from the start, and just need to apply the rules to each question? It seems like more than one on a single exam would ruin someone.

This game is pretty sucky due to it being very question by question rule driven rather than one where finding several key global deductions during set-up lets you easily wipe out the questions.

The complexity/unusual nature of the given conditional rules, along with the amount of question by question hypo/trial and error work required to get those 5 points just ads more insult to injury with this one since there are not any big time saving set-up deductions to be found to expedite solving the questions.

Games that are much more question by question rule application/context deduction driven rather than global set-up deduction oriented in terms of where in the process you have to put in more analysis work to solve the questions are not rare.

I agree, getting two 'have to mainly fight it out brute force with the rules question by question' games in the same section could/would easily destroy many people on test day. In tests that have had two games that were both much more question by question rule application oriented than major set-up deduction oriented, one of the two has typically been fairly easy in terms of not having to dig all that deep and work super hard to solve the questions.

Well at least I'll know the best way to deal with them if I do run into one on test day. I have become fairly accustomed to finding that big inference, and whizzing through almost any linear game well under time...guess I'll need the extra time if I catch one of these

Can you recall any past tests that included two games like this?

[Easy-E]

This question is slightly broader than the initial point of this post, but its related enough that I'd rather not clutter up the board. When it comes to questions where you will need to test each answer choice, is there any tips in terms of deciding which answer choice is most suspect, and attack that one first? I know that for "Could be true" questions I tend to look for a choice containing a wildcard variable, and the most restricted variable for "Must be false", but its far from a foolproof system. I suppose its really just as random as the first choice being correct and saving you the time. So, any methods people use, or is it just plug and chug?

[Kurst]

When a question asks what must be true, eliminate answers which are functionally identical and therefore interchangeable. For example, say two variables are "wildcards," to use your terminology -- no rule applies to them which does not apply to every other variable. If a question asks you what must be true, and has each of those wildcard variables as a separate answer choice, you know that neither of them can be correct: if one was correct, the other must also be correct; there cannot be two correct answer choices.

[Easy-E]

When a question asks what must be true, eliminate answers which are functionally identical and therefore interchangeable. For example, say two variables are "wildcards," to use your terminology -- no rule applies to them which does not apply to every other variable. If a question asks you what must be true, and has each of those wildcard variables as a separate answer choice, you know that neither of them can be correct: if one was correct, the other must also be correct; there cannot be two correct answer choices.

That's a great tip, I'll be sure to keep that one in mind. Thank you!

EDIT: Completed the Reindeer Game...7 out of 8 correct.

My set-up was identical to yours except I just put both places V could be instead of the one space that had to be P/R, but its the same idea. And now reviewing, I see the stupid mistake I made on #6. I put that he could be in four places, not realizing that placing him in the top right spot on both frames does not count as two different positions. I'll have to include all three of these games (LSAT, Noah's, Steve's) for future review. Thanks for the help guys.

[JustE]

I'm missing a line from my copy of this game. Anyone care to complete the following?

"If Gutierrez sits in the same row as Kelly, Moore occupies the seat immediately...?"

I might be missing the line below that as well, hard to tell.

Thanks for the help!

[JustE]

bump

[JustE]

Really? No one?

[lsatilt]

"If Gutierrez sits in the same row as Kelly, Moore occupies the seat immediately and directly behind Imamura's seat."

[JustE]

"If Gutierrez sits in the same row as Kelly, Moore occupies the seat immediately and directly behind Imamura's seat."

Thank you!