Diagram

[laurenvarg]

Does anyone have a good diagram for this game?

I essentially just wrote out what each had to visualize like this:

Real prop:

G Z/Y
____ _____ ______
1 2 3



ETC.

[ohthatpatrick]

Here's what I'd probably have on my page. Let me know if any of it seems confusing.

[laurenvarg]

That makes sense. Is the 2 above the KMO there to indicate you need 2 of those 3?

I went at it basically the same way except I didn't write out which ones were equivalent (I just did that visually and drew it out per each question) I am going to go back and try it again with that drawn out.

Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, that meant "I can trade G or F for any 2 of these three dudes."

and this diagram is total revisionist history, because no one would be impressed or enlightened by the "make it work" mish-mosh I really had on my page.

I wasn't calm/patient enough to think through which specific trades were possible, but I think I should have spent a minute thinking of some specific moves, so that I could get a better feel.

This is why, other than Orientation questions, I always do "If" questions first, so that they will force me to try out some scenarios, by which I will get a better sense of the game.

The hardest part of this game (we call these Process games) is that you are sometimes asked about the result of several rounds of trading. It's hard to keep track of each round of trading mentally; it's annoying to keep redrawing the diagram over and over; and it's tough to otherwise trade/erase/scratch out multiple times within one diagram.

[gabriellemacleod]

Have to say I have finally understood the diagram but can't seem to understand the questions. Could anyone help me figure them out? Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

Sorry to hear that, Gabrielle.

It's definitely one of the weirdest games I've seen in a long time. We don't answer individual games questions on a Diagram thread, so if you want to ask about each question, just start a thread for each one that confused you.

Go back to the main Game 4 page
https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/foru ... f1233.html

and then hit Post New Topic

[s.tofighbakhsh]

I spent a while trying to get this game into a neater box but wound up engineering a board pretty similar to Patrick's. And this is after racking my brain for a while:



I now live in fear that the LSAC designers have a taste for esoteric twisters like this one and will make sure to include one of these in every test going forward!

[andrewgong01]

This is worse than the Prep72 game on the Summit Company.


Originally I misread the rules and thought for every trade round we need to satisfy all 3 trade rules, which apparently is impossible because during the PrepTest I couldn't get all 3 rules to be satisfied in a single trade round.

The second time I did it I thought it was easier and faster to just brute force each question and notice that for the most part all the properties aside from the Third Class ones are interchangeable for the questions so brute force was not actually too bad. I did the conditional questions first and they provided the game board that answered the unconditional ones too.

Looking at it again, I am thinking there may be only limited set of possibilities in how the game plays out but with the time it takes it probably is faster to brute force. I think Q20 was meant to force us to realize that a person can never own both First Class properties because to get a First Class Property you either trade it with another first class property or get two Second Class property for it but the initial set up prevents both R and S from ever getting two Second Class properties without giving up the First Class Property. I think another inference that can be made at the start of the game is that the two third class properties must always be together because the first trade rule is impossible to trigger when both of them start out with R and the third trade rule prevents you from ever splitting up the two third class properties. And then for the questions, notice that all the second class properties are "fluid" and can easily be interchanged with each other without any restrictions based of the first trade rule, which makes the MBT questions a lot easier to attack as some choices are just a fluid interchange of the second class properties.

Hopefully this means June 2017 won't have a curveball

[SarahR524]

Hi Patrick,

For some reason the photo of the diagram you posted takes me to another site and asks me to purchase 3rd party sharing. Would it be possible to post it as a pdf instead?

[ohthatpatrick]

Hey, Sarah

Unfortunately our old system for posting/hosting images no longer works, so there are a bunch of broken image links as our tech support team tries to figure out a new solution for images.

[ZIYAOW681]

Is it workable to resolve this Game in this way?

Because each trading rule creates an equation, so when I got this game I assumed a value for each building:

1 [class 1 building] = $ 4 (G, F)
1 [class 2 building] = $ 2 (L, K, M, O)
1 [class 3 building] = $ 1 (Y, Z)

And because each trade derives from an equation, for the three companies, the total value owned by each company remains as below and will not change no matter how many trades are made:

R: 4 + 1 + 1= 6
S: 4 + 2 = 6
T: 2 + 2 + 2 = 6

Thus,
1) any answer choice gives rise to any not-six sum will be wrong. (with this, Q19, Q20, and Q23 can be solved)
2) this Game probably becomes dividing {4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1} into three groups that all result in a sum of 6. (with this, Q21 and Q22 can be solved)

[TerrenceH]

Is it workable to resolve this Game in this way?

Because each trading rule creates an equation, so when I got this game I assumed a value for each building:

1 [class 1 building] = $ 4 (G, F)
1 [class 2 building] = $ 2 (L, K, M, O)
1 [class 3 building] = $ 1 (Y, Z)

And because each trade derives from an equation, for the three companies, the total value owned by each company remains as below and will not change no matter how many trades are made:

R: 4 + 1 + 1= 6
S: 4 + 2 = 6
T: 2 + 2 + 2 = 6

Thus,
1) any answer choice gives rise to any not-six sum will be wrong. (with this, Q19, Q20, and Q23 can be solved)
2) this Game probably becomes dividing {4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1} into three groups that all result in a sum of 6. (with this, Q21 and Q22 can be solved)

I did it in exactly the samy way (recalled the mathematical games in primary school).

[EaronR591]

Is it workable to resolve this Game in this way?

Because each trading rule creates an equation, so when I got this game I assumed a value for each building:

1 [class 1 building] = $ 4 (G, F)
1 [class 2 building] = $ 2 (L, K, M, O)
1 [class 3 building] = $ 1 (Y, Z)

And because each trade derives from an equation, for the three companies, the total value owned by each company remains as below and will not change no matter how many trades are made:

R: 4 + 1 + 1= 6
S: 4 + 2 = 6
T: 2 + 2 + 2 = 6

Thus,
1) any answer choice gives rise to any not-six sum will be wrong. (with this, Q19, Q20, and Q23 can be solved)
2) this Game probably becomes dividing {4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1} into three groups that all result in a sum of 6. (with this, Q21 and Q22 can be solved)

This is how I did it as well. Sort of a conservation of value method.

[ReginaP412]

How much time is a reasonable amount to spend on this game?

Just seems like you have a lot of testing in each question and there are so many variations. Just curious how much time an efficient test taker should spend on this game?

[Misti Duvall]

How much time is a reasonable amount to spend on this game?

Just seems like you have a lot of testing in each question and there are so many variations. Just curious how much time an efficient test taker should spend on this game?

Hmm, that's tough question. This is a tricky game 4, so ideally you'd have an extra minute or two in the bank to use on it if need be. But there's no hard and fast rule on exactly how much time it will or should take; everyone is different.

If you want to see if you be a little more efficient, try replaying games and note any new connections you see the second time around.