Diagram

[charmayne.palomba]

Here’s an explanation for this game. Let’s go skydiving!

PT63, G2 - Manhattan LSAT.pdf

(143.32 KiB) Downloaded 887 times

[panman36]

Thanks for the explanation. I did something similar. In retrospect I don't know that setting up frames was a good idea. I think just going with the inference that O or L had to be last and L had to be first or last would have been faster. I think it was creating the not laws for each frame instead of just once that took up extra time for me.

[hanselle.c]

I think I would agree about frames.
And also, couldn't there be an inference made around the fact that if we have the option of either
O-P-L
or
L-P-O
we can't have P as first or last.

[noah]

I'm glad you all don't think frames are needed. They're definitely not required. Very few games need frames to be solved. In this case, it's more an issue of style.

As for the P inference, it makes sense to write that in if you didn't do frames. However, there's a point in your development as a game player at which such obvious inferences aren't worth writing down. There are folks who benefit from always writing them in, but for a lot of folks it becomes unnecessary.

[aaron]

In re: the initial diagram posting, it appears to me there is a glaring error in poster's explanation for question # 9. He says that the earliest T can be placed is slot 2. Would this not render option C necessarily false, and thus the correct answer? Why can't the order be "TWZOPL?" I apologize for nitpicking after the fact, but I am just concerned I am missing something glaring here!

[noah]

In re: the initial diagram posting, it appears to me there is a glaring error in poster's explanation for question # 9. He says that the earliest T can be placed is slot 2. Would this not render option C necessarily false, and thus the correct answer? Why can't the order be "TWZOPL?" I apologize for nitpicking after the fact, but I am just concerned I am missing something glaring here!

You're right that's there's a mistake in that part of the explanation-I've gone and fixed it. Good catch!

It should read this:

This is a tough question, which doesn’t let us off the hook by limiting us to one of our framed scenarios. The new condition that Z must come immediately after W gives us a new "chunk" that we have to fit in: WZ. Anytime we get a new chunk like this in a conditional question, we should think of it as a gift! We
already know that chunks are the key to setting up numbered ordering games, and they are equally helpful when provided in a conditional question.

With a bit of playing-around, we can see that the WZ chunk can go in slots 2-3 or 3-4 or 4-5. (It can't start in 1, since T must precede it, and it can't land in 5-6 since Z is prohibited from the last slot). We could write out the three scenarios, but it’s probably enough to write out something like this [see download for better formatting]:


(P, T _ WZ)
L __ __ __ __ O

(T _ WZ, O "” P )
__ __ __ __ __ L

(Note that in the top frame, since Z can’t come last, O must.

Armed with this general sense of the situation, we can scan the answer choices:

(A) seems possible: L T W Z P O
(B) is easy to envision with a bit of movement in the hypothetical for (A): L P T W Z O
(C) requires T second, but that's no problem: L T W Z P O
(D) leaves no room for the WZ chunk after it (Z can't be last) and if we throw T-WZ before it, we can't get O or L before P. Correct!
(E) is proven possible by our scenario for (A).