Diagram

[ali.charania]

I'm having a real hard time on this problem. Can someone please explain it to me?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

It makes sense that you found this one difficult because it relies heavily on proper organization. Having the right set up will make all the difference!

I've attached one to help you see one way to organize the information. You may not see the pattern as you move through the game, but even if you don't the setup remains the same.

[b91302310]

Thanks for the organization chart. However, I am still confused about applying the second rule "whoever partners Rita in dance 2 must partner Sarah in dance 3". Is it a conditional reasoning which sufficient conditi is partnering Rita in dance 2 and the necessary condition is partnering Sarah in dance 3? If true, is it still possible that the person parters Sarah in dance 3 may not partner Rita in dance 2? If true, how to make certain the pattern as attached?

Thanks in advance for the explanation!

[theaether]

wow I'm completely lost on this one. Where does it even say that each boy and each girl must perform in each dance? For instance, why can't the first dance be KT, MR, LT, completely leaving S out? The question only says the dance comprises 3 pairs of boys and girls?

Now that I think about it, if the dance features 3 pairs simultaneously, then all 6 would have to be included. But if a "dance" could be broken down into sections, then the same boy or girl could perform multiple times in "dance one," for instance.

did I miss some wording that disallows such a situation?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I think you answered your own question. The idea of sections would have been mentioned had the test writer wanted to include that possibility. Logic Games are challenging enough as they are. They wouldn't include a possibility like that without making it obvious.

In the LG section the test writer is not trying to hide the scenario from you. Sometimes you get the sense that the test writer wants to be as clear as possible and yet the description isn't clear. Some scenarios are so explicit that they are actually more confusing in the end (this one is a good example of that). One also got the sense that early on, that the test writer was frustrated with his/her ability to describe the situation accurately, and so simply gave up and drew a picture. For examples of this check out:

PT9, S3, G4
PT4, S4, G4
PT6, S4, G3

Notice these are all from the early 90's. At some point they regained they're confidence in describing the scenario and the pictures go away. Chalk this up to poor language and good intentions, rather than any sinister plot to trick you.

[interestedintacos]

Wouldn't this game best be diagrammed in the style of page 214 of the Manhattan LSAT Logic Games guide? That section is talking about the intersection of three element sets. In this game we had the boys (set 1), girls (set 2) and dances (set 3). In fact the example in the book also has 3 members per set.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The example in the book is the essentially same, just with fewer colors. Imagine taking the R, S, and T and sliding them all into the y-axis.

R _ _ _
S _ _ _
T _ _ _
111 2 3

Essentially it's the same information. Sorry if it lead to any confusion.

[sukim764]

Can one of the instructors kindly remind me why the original diagram that Matt posted is structured around the three girls rather than it being structured around the boys?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Great question!

The reason I would orientate the game around the girls rather than the boys is the 2nd constraint. We know that whoever dances with Rita in dance 2 must dance with Sarah in dance 1, which further implies that the same person dances with Tura in dance 1. So by placing the girls into the framework of the game board, it makes it possible to see the spots where that one boy who must conform to the limitations of the 2nd constraint would go.

Hope that helps!

[XiaoL577]

Would anyone please respond to the following question? Thank you in advance!!

"Thanks for the organization chart. However, I am still confused about applying the second rule "whoever partners Rita in dance 2 must partner Sarah in dance 3". Is it a conditional reasoning which sufficient conditi is partnering Rita in dance 2 and the necessary condition is partnering Sarah in dance 3? If true, is it still possible that the person parters Sarah in dance 3 may not partner Rita in dance 2? If true, how to make certain the pattern as attached?

Thanks in advance for the explanation!"

[Laura Damone]

Hi there!

Rule 2 establishes that the boy who dances with Rita in the second dance also dances with Sarah in the third dance. This is actually a biconditional: knowing, for example, that Rita and Miguel danced together in dance 2 would establish that Sarah and Miguel danced together in dance 3. Likewise, knowing that Sarah and Luis danced together in dance 3 would establish that Rita and Luis danced together in dance 2.

Coupled with the third rule, that kids can't dance together twice, we can also infer that Tura gets that partner in dance 1. Thus the pattern is established.

Hope this helps!