Lsat Preptest 05, Analytical Game 04: June 1992

In this LSAT logic game a committee ranks five towns based on climate, location and friendliness. The towns are as follows: Palmdale, Quietville, Riverdale, Seaside and Tidetown. The challenge of the test taker is to determine the town rankings of climate, location and friendliness.

As a preliminary matter the test taker must determine what type of LSAT logic game she is asked to solve. Logic games fall under four broad categories: 1) sequential; 2) grouping; 3) sequential game with grouping aspects; and 4) grouping game with sequential aspects. When the test taker is faced with a sequential game the test taker must quickly ascertain whether the sequential game has any grouping aspects and/or dual sequential aspects. Grouping aspects to a sequential game mainly occur in three ways: 1) one or more variables that occur in a sequence have a distinguishing characteristic, such as a color; 2) two or more variables occur in one spot in the sequence; and 3) there are some variables that do not occur in the sequence at all.

Once the test taker has determined the type of LSAT logic game that she is asked to solve, the test taker must then decide which solution strategy to employ. Four basic solution strategies are listed as follows in order of solution preference: 1) wholly solved scenarios; 2) intuitively solved scenarios; 3) scenario templates; and 4) nuts and bolts. A wholly solved scenarios solution strategy occurs when the rules of the logic game allow for the creation of scenarios that show every permutation of the variables and/or groups in the logic game. The test taker employs various distribution strategies and is generally able to create anywhere from four to twelve scenarios. The scenarios are said to be wholly solved due to the fact that there are simply no other possible variations of variables and/or groups in the logic game.

As always the test taker should employ the hierarchy of rules to solve the scenarios. The test taker is given a game scenario that has the potential to be immensely complex. Specifically, the test taker is given what amounts to three sequences all placed on top of one another that in some situations are interrelated to one another. Such a game can be thought of as intuitively complex.

Intuitively complex games do not by and large have a large number of scenarios. The challenge to logic games such as this is to find the correct set up. The test taker should place all three of the rank qualifiers in a vertical position with five spaces permeating outward. Put another way, the test taker has three sequence games placed on top of one another.

Next the test taker applies the numerous first order rules, which confine the game tremendously. The test taker should next consider the ramifications of Q, which is not able to have the same rank for any of the days. Thus, the test taker creates two worlds, which takes care of all the possibilities for Q.

The test taker then considers the ramifications of what occurs with R, T and P in regards to friendliness. In the first world the test taker is forced to place R, T and P due to the confining nature of the placement of Q in climate. In the second world the test taker must create on additional world to reveal all the possibilities that can occur.

The test taker ends up with a total of three scenarios and can easily answer all of the questions. This game falls into the classic category of intuitively complex with a limited number of possibilities. Again, the challenge to this analytical game lies in creating the correct set up rather than actual complexity via the game. The test taker that does not construct the correct set up will have an extremely difficult time answering the questions to this logic game.