Diagram

[jdillier]

This is absolutly the most retarded game ever. I think the neither and either is throwing me off but with the answers I still can't figure out how to do it. The diagram is huge and a mess!

Anyone also know any games similar to this so I can practice and master?

[dan]

This is a binary grouping game, but it's a particularly difficult binary grouping game. I haven't seen one quite like this in terms of difficulty.

If you're wanting more work on binary grouping, you might try these games:

E 45, S 3, G 3
E 42, S 1, G 1
E 41, S 2, G 3
E 40, S 2, G 4

dan

[dan]

Attached is a solution to this game that you might find helpful. It uses our Logic Chain system for diagramming the conditional constraints.

Just a preface... this game is very complicated for a few reasons:

1) It uses primarily compound conditional statements, which are more difficult to translate and infer from (contrapositive).

2) The elements are just plain confusing! Used Jazz, New Jazz, etc. We're forced to used a double-letter notation system (UJ, NJ, etc.) that is intimidating to look at.

3) Ten elements in total!

There are a few different ways to diagram this game, but regardless of what you do you must translate the conditionals and find the contrapositives. There's no way around that. Our Logic Chain system provides a convenient way to link the conditionals so that inferences are easier to spot.

Hope this helps!

dan

[tayjones]

Wow-- nice explanation. I've seen versions of this logic chain for binary selection games before, but I abandoned it because it was often more trouble than it was worth. This is a more flexible and distilled version. It made short work of one of the most difficult games I've seen. I think I'll try it out. Thanks!

[zach.wallis]

Agreed. Great explanation, Dan. Thanks.

[interestedintacos]

I've taken on this game a number of times in the past. I've tried the logic chain method and other diagramming methods (both involving separating the variables into new and used and creating a complex logic chain of one form or another). I've also tried a more simplistic approach where instead of creating a logic chain with new and used separated I used just J, for instance, to signify J used and J new.

Even though I'm proficient at creating logic chains and other diagrams like this, every time I take on this game I get bogged down. It simply takes too long to work out the chain--and there is a high possibility for errors. For me personally every time I struggle with representing used and new: I will write Rn, but then when the question stem says "new rap" I start thinking NR or Nr, and it takes me even more time to work through the muck.

The last time I tried this section I ended up with only 5 minutes to complete this game. What did I do? I threw out all the diagrams and resolved to simply work by referring back to the rules listed--yes NO DIAGRAM at all. All of that with the additional pressure of clearly not having enough time to finish the game. In the end the game took about 8 minutes, and I got all the questions right. Perhaps it's just me, but perhaps one should realize that going through the pains to diagram every possibility so distinctly could be just as much of an error as trying to find every possibility in any other type of game where the total number of possibilities is way too high.

The reality was that the questions were not that complicated, and despite the general focus of test prep companies to emphasize diagrams, we shouldn't be emphasizing creating something that is ultra complex and will take most students a very long time but won't actually be necessary to even get every question in the game.

I suggest you try this game over again either with a much more simple diagram or no diagram at all and see the results. The first question is an acceptability question easily taken care of. The second and third questions are IF local questions--so it's simply a matter of applying the information in the stem and then going through each rule in the list (as well as the contrapositive) in your head to see if something applies. By the time you reach #10 you should already have a few inferences in your head, and that question and the rest of the game shouldn't be too difficult. The time you save by completely skipping a diagram, and certainly skipping such a complex diagram, is huge.

I want to add one more thing: From the perspective of the testmakers I think this game is meant to weed out those who are decent with conditional reasoning from those who are proficient. Even someone proficient in conditional reasoning can get bogged down simply by the inherent difficulties of diagramming if X + Y = A + B, etc. I think the testmakers want you to get bogged down in a diagram; that's why this game throws a bunch of rules meant to make it hard to diagram.

[noah]

Thanks for your thoughts - I think you bring up a good point. From time to time, the diagram is more trouble than its worth. Other times, the diagram simply serves to represent the rules so that their "owned." The logic chain is definitely a diagram method that ends up being sometimes SUPER helpful, and other times just a visual representation of the rules, and perhaps, in this case, a time-consuming process.

For the former situation, it's a tough call since, except for those who are good at solving logic puzzles in their head, it'll be few and far between the games where no diagram is a workable strategy for people. We try to emphasize flexibility in approaching games, and I think your method is a great example of that. We'd be lying if we said that we have the method to crack the LSAT - it's too well-made a test.

[interestedintacos]

Well, I've experienced a similar problem on a few of these selection/in-out games.

I spend a lot of time coming up with a beautiful diagram that combines all the rules (either your logic chain or something that is more horizontal), and then when I get to the questions I realize I haven't spent any time actually thinking through the rules. That means I haven't even taken the time to think about bare basics, like which entities cannot go together.

At least for me, diagramming in these games has almost been an excuse for me to not have to actually think about the conditionals and how they work together; instead I can just throw it all on a complicated, but elegant diagram, and know that the diagram will represent everything accurately so I don't need to think so much--just plug in the conditions I'm given and get a result from the diagram. Simple.

The problem has been either something like this game--where I absolutely believe the testmakers have deliberately created a game meant to destroy over-diagrammers (with the more complicated conditionals and the subscript, but easy questions)--or games where the questions are difficult to the point where mindlessly applying the extra condition(s) you get in question stems will not give you the necessary results--to really take care of the game quickly you have to have the rules somewhat nailed down in your head.

Over and over I failed in these games because plugging in that extra piece of information didn't really give me the inferences necessary to answer the question. Although I think this tends to apply more in defined selection games as opposed to completely undefined ones like the new and used cds one, but the bottom line is the same. The diagram becomes a substitute for actual thinking--I think also because conditional reasoning is just so...conditional, but clearly this can be a problem.

[noah]

Interesting. I find the diagrams are a way to help me think out the implications of rules, put them together, etc. I haven't heard many people saying what you're saying, but perhaps you need to experiment with doing less diagramming. Everyone's got a different style.

Tell me how it goes.

[mjf0421]

I might need to go with Mr.Taco on this one...

I tried to diagram this and got completely lost in it. I think a good rule of thumb might be if the diagram seems like it's getting too complicated try a few of the questions first.

I was struggling to come up with a coherent diagram, came here, saw his comment about skip it and then went straight into the questions without worrying about the diagram and completed the game without too much trouble.

I'm still going to try diagramming first on every game, I just wanted to agree that sometimes just abandoning ship and diving into the questions is a good backup strategy when the diagram is exacerbating the problem of the moment instead of helping.

[noah]

Well, it's hard to argue with one's experience!

I've come across a game or two where that proved to be the case as well. Good thing to keep in mind, though I'd hate to see a rookie read this and think this exception applies widely.

[chunsunb]

I just found out that Reese Witherspoon solves this question on Legally Blonde and gets a 143 hahaha

[tommywallach]

Seriously? That's hilarious.

-t

[esthertan0310]

For any games in this difficulty level, how much time should ideally be allocated?
It is very challenging to finish this game in 8 minutes...

[tommywallach]

Hey Esther,

Well a difficult game could conceivably take 10 minutes, but you'd have to make up that time elsewhere. That being said, I think it's possible to work within the 8-minute constraint here, it's just a question of experience to be able to move speedily!

-t

[AbhistD667]

Does anyone using MPrep materials think that rule chart is a better way to diagram this game rather than logic chain method?

[Laura Damone]

I found it harder when I played it with the rule chart. The chain is tough, too, because of the compound rules, but I think fudging the compounds into the chain is cleaner than the rule chart with all those contrapositives. For example, I just used a single arrow for the R/S rules, and in my T chart built in a placeholder in the out group for both Rs or Both Ss. That way I remembered that the prohibition on Rs and Ss in together is total. For the J/R rule, I put a little bracket between the Js in the In column to indicate both J's selected and drew that arrow to the R's out. For the contrapositive, I drew an arrow from the R's in to the Js out, but with a little "OR" in between. Then, to keep things from getting messy when I built in rule 4, I put a star by the J's in the out with a note that Both Out --> NP In.

Hope this helps!