In/Out Grouping: Conditional Chain or Manhattan? Forum

[drumstickies]

I used to love Manhattan's strategy for in-out grouping games, but I find that it gets really messy for some of the more complex in-out games. (It makes basic in-out games a breeze, though.) PT 34, Game 4 (doctors assigned to Souderton or Randsborough), for example, took me longer than it should have, because I had to sort through my unavoidably messy diagram. Has anyone found a way of making Manhattan's in-out strategy cleaner? Or should I try to learn/get better at making conditional chains for more complex in-out games? Thanks much.

[monadologist]

The game you speak of is simply an IN-out game, just pick whichever clinic floats your boat and consider it true, and the other false. Personally I use kind of a combination of the MLG chain and just writing conditionals, it depends on the game. You gotta be flexible, but still have a method that you can use systematically. Can you sort out contrapositives in your head or do you need them visually represented? How are you in Formal Logic? If I ask you (P^W) or Q, and give you as a second premise ~P, what can you infer?

About the MLG Chain, to make it cleaner I find just draw it bigger, might sound dumb, but check it out bro

[nyjets2090]

I used to love Manhattan's strategy for in-out grouping games, but I find that it gets really messy for some of the more complex in-out games. (It makes basic in-out games a breeze, though.) PT 34, Game 4 (doctors assigned to Souderton or Randsborough), for example, took me longer than it should have, because I had to sort through my unavoidably messy diagram. Has anyone found a way of making Manhattan's in-out strategy cleaner? Or should I try to learn/get better at making conditional chains for more complex in-out games? Thanks much.

That's not an in or out game.

[monadologist]

I used to love Manhattan's strategy for in-out grouping games, but I find that it gets really messy for some of the more complex in-out games. (It makes basic in-out games a breeze, though.) PT 34, Game 4 (doctors assigned to Souderton or Randsborough), for example, took me longer than it should have, because I had to sort through my unavoidably messy diagram. Has anyone found a way of making Manhattan's in-out strategy cleaner? Or should I try to learn/get better at making conditional chains for more complex in-out games? Thanks much.

That's not an in or out game.

Sure it is.... Why isn't it?

[Daily_Double]

I just use basic conditionals which is really what Manhattan's chain is trying to get you to do.

[nyjets2090]

I used to love Manhattan's strategy for in-out grouping games, but I find that it gets really messy for some of the more complex in-out games. (It makes basic in-out games a breeze, though.) PT 34, Game 4 (doctors assigned to Souderton or Randsborough), for example, took me longer than it should have, because I had to sort through my unavoidably messy diagram. Has anyone found a way of making Manhattan's in-out strategy cleaner? Or should I try to learn/get better at making conditional chains for more complex in-out games? Thanks much.

That's not an in or out game.

Sure it is.... Why isn't it?

Because you're assigning the players to two teams. You're not saying some people are on a team and some are not playing at all.

An in/out game would mean some people are on a team and some aren't, and it's important to note the distinction between these two games when setting up rules. In a game with two teams a rule along the lines of A can't be with B means that A will definitely be on one team and B will definitely be on the other. If it's an in/out game, there's the possibility that A and B are both out.

A can't be with B

Team Red: A/B
Team Green: B/A

That goes right into my setup and it is very helpful.


A can't be with B

In:
Out:

Maybe A is in, maybe B is in, but maybe both are out. I just don't know.

Of course some team games have an out group, then you really have to know what's going on.

[elterrible78]

I used to love Manhattan's strategy for in-out grouping games, but I find that it gets really messy for some of the more complex in-out games. (It makes basic in-out games a breeze, though.) PT 34, Game 4 (doctors assigned to Souderton or Randsborough), for example, took me longer than it should have, because I had to sort through my unavoidably messy diagram. Has anyone found a way of making Manhattan's in-out strategy cleaner? Or should I try to learn/get better at making conditional chains for more complex in-out games? Thanks much.

That's the game in which one rule straight up contradicts another, no?

[nyjets2090]

I used to love Manhattan's strategy for in-out grouping games, but I find that it gets really messy for some of the more complex in-out games. (It makes basic in-out games a breeze, though.) PT 34, Game 4 (doctors assigned to Souderton or Randsborough), for example, took me longer than it should have, because I had to sort through my unavoidably messy diagram. Has anyone found a way of making Manhattan's in-out strategy cleaner? Or should I try to learn/get better at making conditional chains for more complex in-out games? Thanks much.

That's the game in which one rule straight up contradicts another, no?

I didn't see any contradictions, what do you mean exactly? It's a fairly straightforward game, Qs 21 & 22 can eat up time though.

I also see why some people think it's an in-out game. Cambridge has it grouped as in-out. I disagree with their categorization. Pt 33 S4 G2 is what I think of when I say in-out game (Jays and Shrikes).

[sublime]

..

[kaiser]

OP, you need to distinguish between games with 2 distinct groups from games where there truly is an in and an out group (such as the one about birds in the forest, trees in the forest, fruit at the fruit stand, etc.) For those, the conditional chains are excellent, and I've never gotten a single in-out question wrong (and can fly through those games faster than any other). It is all due to a clear conditional chain that combines all rules together. In an in/out game, the diagram is so incredibly clear since the negation of any factor places it directly into the "not" group. I haven't taken any of the LSATs from the past few years, but as of 2010, there wasn't a single in-out game that couldn't be readily attacked via a full conditional chain that combines all rules. Some had a few confusion quirks, but nothing that can't be worked in with a bit of thinking.

[nyjets2090]

I used to love Manhattan's strategy for in-out grouping games, but I find that it gets really messy for some of the more complex in-out games. (It makes basic in-out games a breeze, though.) PT 34, Game 4 (doctors assigned to Souderton or Randsborough), for example, took me longer than it should have, because I had to sort through my unavoidably messy diagram. Has anyone found a way of making Manhattan's in-out strategy cleaner? Or should I try to learn/get better at making conditional chains for more complex in-out games? Thanks much.

That's the game in which one rule straight up contradicts another, no?

I didn't see any contradictions, what do you mean exactly? It's a fairly straightforward game, Qs 21 & 22 can eat up time though.

I also see why some people think it's an in-out game. Cambridge has it grouped as in-out. I disagree with their categorization. Pt 33 S4 G2 is what I think of when I say in-out game (Jays and Shrikes).

You are getting caught up in the name "in-out" If there are two groups and you have to separate elements into them, it certainly is in/out. Structurally sorting between A and B is the same as A and out. What you are looking for is A and "not A"

It's not in/out because there is no out group. In this game everybody is in, but on different teams. An in/out game is not equivalent to a two team game.

[TheMostDangerousLG]

It's not in/out because there is no out group. In this game everybody is in, but on different teams. An in/out game is not equivalent to a two team game.

It is an in/out game. I have yet to see any LG system classify it otherwise. As someone stated above, you are overdetermining the words "in/out". You could call them "this condition or that condition" or "this team or that team" games instead, the point is just that each individual will be assigned to a single group, and there are only two groups. There is no functional difference between "each member is either in or out; if you aren't in, you're out; if you aren't out, you're in" and "each member is either on team A or team B; if you aren't on team A, you're on team B; if you aren't on team B, you're on team A". All that matters is that you are assigning every individual to one of two mutually exclusive conditions.

[Micdiddy]

I used to love Manhattan's strategy for in-out grouping games, but I find that it gets really messy for some of the more complex in-out games. (It makes basic in-out games a breeze, though.) PT 34, Game 4 (doctors assigned to Souderton or Randsborough), for example, took me longer than it should have, because I had to sort through my unavoidably messy diagram. Has anyone found a way of making Manhattan's in-out strategy cleaner? Or should I try to learn/get better at making conditional chains for more complex in-out games? Thanks much.

That's the game in which one rule straight up contradicts another, no?

Not exactly two rules directly contradicting each other, but yes if you follow one rule it leads to a contradiction of another, so you can find out that L HAS to be in S because if it was in R the contradiction would occur or whatever it is.
Also, this is definitely NOT an in/out game.

[Micdiddy]

It's not in/out because there is no out group. In this game everybody is in, but on different teams. An in/out game is not equivalent to a two team game.

It is an in/out game. I have yet to see any LG system classify it otherwise. As someone stated above, you are overdetermining the words "in/out". You could call them "this condition or that condition" or "this team or that team" games instead, the point is just that each individual will be assigned to a single group, and there are only two groups. There is no functional difference between "each member is either in or out; if you aren't in, you're out; if you aren't out, you're in" and "each member is either on team A or team B; if you aren't on team A, you're on team B; if you aren't on team B, you're on team A". All that matters is that you are assigning every individual to one of two mutually exclusive conditions.

That's not the definition of an in/out game. The important difference for an in/out game is that the out group does not have variables that are "together." Meaning if there was a rule that states "a cannot be with b" they could both sill be "out."bth is is just a grouping game with two groups.

[TheMostDangerousLG]

It's not in/out because there is no out group. In this game everybody is in, but on different teams. An in/out game is not equivalent to a two team game.

It is an in/out game. I have yet to see any LG system classify it otherwise. As someone stated above, you are overdetermining the words "in/out". You could call them "this condition or that condition" or "this team or that team" games instead, the point is just that each individual will be assigned to a single group, and there are only two groups. There is no functional difference between "each member is either in or out; if you aren't in, you're out; if you aren't out, you're in" and "each member is either on team A or team B; if you aren't on team A, you're on team B; if you aren't on team B, you're on team A". All that matters is that you are assigning every individual to one of two mutually exclusive conditions.

That's not the definition of an in/out game. The important difference for an in/out game is that the out group does not have variables that are "together." Meaning if there was a rule that states "a cannot be with b" they could both sill be "out."bth is is just a grouping game with two groups.

Admittedly, my approach towards and interpretation of grouping games are neither perfect nor consistent, and everyone would do just fine to disregard everything I just said and will say on this matter. But in the typical instance of those games explicitly labeled in/out grouping, the wording is not "A can't be with B", it's "if A is in (the group/forest/band/hot tub), B is not". Which is not dissimilar from those rules that say "if A is in 1, B is in 2"- both can still be in team 2 (or "out", if you will), but we know A and B both can't be in 1 together.

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I do a lot of my two-condition/two-set grouping games in the same or a similar way as I do in/out grouping. I think it was the 3rd edition of the Manhattan LG guide that provided the insight that led to this approach.

I'm also just so god damn tired, I don't really know what I'm talking about anymore. Ten Nine more days.

[Micdiddy]

It's not in/out because there is no out group. In this game everybody is in, but on different teams. An in/out game is not equivalent to a two team game.

It is an in/out game. I have yet to see any LG system classify it otherwise. As someone stated above, you are overdetermining the words "in/out". You could call them "this condition or that condition" or "this team or that team" games instead, the point is just that each individual will be assigned to a single group, and there are only two groups. There is no functional difference between "each member is either in or out; if you aren't in, you're out; if you aren't out, you're in" and "each member is either on team A or team B; if you aren't on team A, you're on team B; if you aren't on team B, you're on team A". All that matters is that you are assigning every individual to one of two mutually exclusive conditions.

That's not the definition of an in/out game. The important difference for an in/out game is that the out group does not have variables that are "together." Meaning if there was a rule that states "a cannot be with b" they could both sill be "out."bth is is just a grouping game with two groups.

Admittedly, my approach towards and interpretation of grouping games are neither perfect nor consistent, and everyone would do just fine to disregard everything I just said and will say on this matter. But in the typical instance of those games explicitly labeled in/out grouping, the wording is not "A can't be with B", it's "if A is in (the group/forest/band/hot tub), B is not". Which is not dissimilar from those rules that say "if A is in 1, B is in 2"- both can still be in team 2 (or "out", if you will), but we know A and B both can't be in 1 together.

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I do a lot of my two-condition/two-set grouping games in the same or a similar way as I do in/out grouping. I think it was the 3rd edition of the Manhattan LG guide that provided the insight that led to this approach.

I'm also just so god damn tired, I don't really know what I'm talking about anymore. Ten Nine more days.

Yes the LSAT is careful with their words, but we also want to be careful with our organizing. In/out is a type of grouping game, but are clearly critically different than two group grouping games. The semantics aren't all that important, if you call this game "in/out" but then crush the game with a good approach, then call it whatever you want

[sublime]

..

[Clearly]

I recall it being an in out game, because each player had to be used, and there were only two options. It's just as binary as birds in the forest, or the fruit stand game. Any two team game in which every player has to be on a team is an in out game, whether or not they use the phrases in/out or on-stage/off stage, or in the photo/not in the photo, or souderton/randsborough. The real catch is that everybody has to be used, or else it's no longer two teams, its three (souderton/randsborough/out).

[sublime]

..

[Clearly]

I recall it being an in out game, because each player had to be used, and there were only two options. It's just as binary as birds in the forest, or the fruit stand game. Any two team game in which every player has to be on a team is an in out game, whether or not they use the phrases in/out or on-stage/off stage, or in the photo/not in the photo, or souderton/randsborough. The real catch is that everybody has to be used, or else it's no longer two teams, its three (souderton/randsborough/out).

That is what I was thinking. Only two options for grouping is an in out game? Right? What else could it be?

As long as everybody has to be on a team, and no one can be on both teams, to me...yes.

[Midas Whale]

I thought Manhattan's strategy was far better than any of the alternatives.

[Micdiddy]

I recall it being an in out game, because each player had to be used, and there were only two options. It's just as binary as birds in the forest, or the fruit stand game. Any two team game in which every player has to be on a team is an in out game, whether or not they use the phrases in/out or on-stage/off stage, or in the photo/not in the photo, or souderton/randsborough. The real catch is that everybody has to be used, or else it's no longer two teams, its three (souderton/randsborough/out).

So you consider trial and appellate court to be in/out?
By the way, the fact that everyone has to be used is a condition of regular grouping games, the whole point of in/out games is that not everyone has to be in. Tutoring companies invent "out" as a "group" (or rather a placeholder for variables) because it makes the game easier, but technically "out" just means "not in use."

[LMD]

In the jays/shrikes game, there are certain conditionals such as A ---> ~B (if A then not B) that still allow for both A and B to be in the out group together. This is not the case when there are two teams, where if given a rule such as this you know they have to be on different teams. This is the key difference between the game types.

[Clearly]

I recall it being an in out game, because each player had to be used, and there were only two options. It's just as binary as birds in the forest, or the fruit stand game. Any two team game in which every player has to be on a team is an in out game, whether or not they use the phrases in/out or on-stage/off stage, or in the photo/not in the photo, or souderton/randsborough. The real catch is that everybody has to be used, or else it's no longer two teams, its three (souderton/randsborough/out).

So you consider trial and appellate court to be in/out?
By the way, the fact that everyone has to be used is a condition of regular grouping games, the whole point of in/out games is that not everyone has to be in.

The bolded is where you lose me. You are talking about two separate things here. Being used, and being "in". Not everyone has to be "in" but everyone has to be used (as in either in, or out, but never both). Any game in which everyone has to be used, only has two options, and in which no one can be used more than once is binary. To break it down further is just splitting hairs. The real difference between binary and regular grouping games is that a person not being on one side, necessitates them being on the other. Not A is equivalent to B. Not Souderton is equivalent to Randsborough, Not In is equivalent to Out.

Also, saying that everyone has to be used is a condition of any regular grouping game isn't true. There are dozens of grouping games (not In/Out) that have people not being used (more players than slots) and plenty in which people can be used more than once. Plenty of games do have the rule that everyone has to be used, sure, but that is certainly not a condition necessary for a game to be considered grouping.

[Micdiddy]

I recall it being an in out game, because each player had to be used, and there were only two options. It's just as binary as birds in the forest, or the fruit stand game. Any two team game in which every player has to be on a team is an in out game, whether or not they use the phrases in/out or on-stage/off stage, or in the photo/not in the photo, or souderton/randsborough. The real catch is that everybody has to be used, or else it's no longer two teams, its three (souderton/randsborough/out).

So you consider trial and appellate court to be in/out?
By the way, the fact that everyone has to be used is a condition of regular grouping games, the whole point of in/out games is that not everyone has to be in.

The bolded is where you lose me. You are talking about two separate things here. Being used, and being "in". Not everyone has to be "in" but everyone has to be used (as in either in, or out, but never both). Any game in which everyone has to be used, only has two options, and in which no one can be used more than once is binary. To break it down further is just splitting hairs. The real difference between binary and regular grouping games is that a person not being on one side, necessitates them being on the other. Not A is equivalent to B. Not Souderton is equivalent to Randsborough, Not In is equivalent to Out.

Also, saying that everyone has to be used is a condition of any regular grouping game isn't true. There are dozens of grouping games (not In/Out) that have people not being used (more players than slots) and plenty in which people can be used more than once. Plenty of games do have the rule that everyone has to be used, sure, but that is certainly not a condition necessary for a game to be considered grouping.

I feel like you are contradicting yourself. Either "out" is a group or it's not. If there is a grouping where "not everyone has to be used" then you are admitting "out" doesn't count as a group, which destroys your own argument that any two group grouping game is identical to in/out (which implicitly makes "out" a group).

I think you are just using a different definition for in/out, this whole binary thing. Though in/out and two group grouping games share that characteristic, I don't think it's the defining identity of in/out. If they were called "binary" games maybe it would be, and maybe that's a perfectly fine way to categorize it, but it's simply not what in/out means. Think about those words, "in/out," it's pretty clear this game has no in and no out.

Anyway, this is the most shits I've given for such an irrelevant semantic dispute. But whatever I'm bored and it's fun.