Diagram

[oslo90066]

I am wondering if someone could post a set-up for this game. I do not think I got all the deductions, namely the role of K in this game.

[noah]

What is your diagram?

[oslo90066]

I set up two columns, one for panel scientists and one for non-panel scientists, with all the variables and divided it into three sections by scientists. I linked the conditionals.

The only deduction I made is that if more than one botanists is selected, then M cannot be selected. I am wondering if this is the only additional deduction, or if there might be other ones.

[noah]

I have the same set-up. The only thing I might add is an assignment line (I just made up that term) showing how many will be in and how many out. It helps me keep track of what sorts of elements (scientists in this case) are in and have to be out . . .

PT 42, S1, G1 - Botanists, Chemists, Zoologists - Manhattan LSAT.pdf

(58.14 KiB) Downloaded 1361 times

I don't think there were any other big inferences to draw - it's clear from the get go that numerical distributions are a key to this game, but drawing them out didn't seem worth it.

But perhaps someone else will chime in with something that astounds us all . . .

[velvet]

I'm always thinking of numerical distributions whenever I encounter a closed binary game now, but I am having trouble figuring out when it's worth the time to make these these inferences up front during setup. Like for this game it was useless coming up with the numerical distributions for botanists, chemists, and zoologist. The "If more than one botanist is selected..." conditional ended up being a huge driving force for the game, but I wasted time coming up with different numerical scenarios off this. How do you know when to spend the extra time to figure numerical distributions beforehand?

[noah]

I'm always thinking of numerical distributions whenever I encounter a closed binary game now, but I am having trouble figuring out when it's worth the time to make these these inferences up front during setup. Like for this game it was useless coming up with the numerical distributions for botanists, chemists, and zoologist. The "If more than one botanist is selected..." conditional ended up being a huge driving force for the game, but I wasted time coming up with different numerical scenarios off this. How do you know when to spend the extra time to figure numerical distributions beforehand?

Great question.

You're of course correct that numerical distributions are an important thing to consider for these closed conditional grouping games. In terms of whether it's worth it for a particular game, don't sweat that--just spend 10-20 seconds considering the numbers, and if nothing is coming, move on. If there's something there, pursue it. Don't worry about "wasting time" on it--even if there's nothing to be gleaned from the distribution, you'll have thought deeply about the game and gained greater control over it.

[timmydoeslsat]

I'm always thinking of numerical distributions whenever I encounter a closed binary game now, but I am having trouble figuring out when it's worth the time to make these these inferences up front during setup. Like for this game it was useless coming up with the numerical distributions for botanists, chemists, and zoologist. The "If more than one botanist is selected..." conditional ended up being a huge driving force for the game, but I wasted time coming up with different numerical scenarios off this. How do you know when to spend the extra time to figure numerical distributions beforehand?

You really will not know whether it is worth your time or not.

As Noah said, you need to consider numerical distribution. This game and its rules do invoke a sense of limited distribution.

B-C-Z
1-?-?
2-2-1
3-1-1

I know for certain what happens with the distribution when we have more than 1 botantist. However, with exactly 1 botantist, we do have a lot of latitude. I know that C and Z will each have to have 1. But there is a lot of uncertainty there. I would simply leave the distribution set up like that without worrying about what happens when we have only one B.

[mlbrandow]

I don't think you really need to factor in numerical distribution at all. The distribution is determined by applying that first rule in conjunction with the additional information they give you. It's something to keep in mind, but not something you need to be overly concerned with in this particular game because they don't give you enough information only in the rules.

Here's a solution I typed up for this game that involves only applying the rules for each question:

[noah]

mlbrandow, you're awesome. I don't have time to look through this all right now, but let's see what others think. I've reattached your diagrams as a download in case someone wants to consider them offline (I hope that's OK with you).

PT42, S1, G1 - MLBrandow solution [Compatibility Mode].pdf

(33.31 KiB) Downloaded 403 times