PT72.S4.G1 - a radio station airs hourly news updates

steve-10

A condition stated is "Within each segment, reports are ordered by length, from longest to shortest." For purposes of my question I'd like to emphasize that this condition, like all LG rules, is an absolute rule that must be followed.

We are given no information about the length relation of T to either of W or I. Despite this:

The correct answer to Q1, the typical "acceptable configuration" question, implies T — W (where "—" is the usual notation indicating relative order). If this is a way of providing more information, i.e., another rule, it is unique in my limited experience.
The correct answers to Q5 and Q6 imply T — I.

How can T — W or T — I be required assumptions to answer correctly without our having any information that would support them?

The explanation for this game does not address my question.

Tinyosi1

This actually doesn't require you to assume these; the other four answer choices are incorrect on their own.

A violates that N is the longest
C violates that S is the shortest
D violates I...W(I is longer than W)
E violates that each segment needs a Local Interest report(The second segment only has General Interest)

With these four eliminated, B HAS to be correct.

Edit: I decided this wasn't a complete enough explanation since it didn't cover 5 and 6.

Looking at Question 5, we can see once again that the answer itself is correct without this assumption. If I were the last report of the first segment, W could not be in the first segment since I must be longer than W. Similarly, I must be longer than S since S is ALWAYS the shortest. Since I is the last(shortest) of the first segment, the second segment must be W and S.

So now lets look at the first segment. We have I as last, and two blank spaces left. Well, since N is ALWAYS the longest, It must be N-T-I. As you can see, we arrive at this answer not because of the assumption that T-I, it is simply a product of the existing restrictions.

Now, question 6. The only reason T - I is the case here is because the game dictated this.

So can we have I-T? Yes. Consider:
1: NWS
2: IT

Unless I am wrong, this is a valid answer. As you can see, T - I is not a must be true.

steve-10

Yes, as I indicated, the fact that (B) is correct for Q1 implies T—W. So we don't have to assume that to derive the correct answer by elimination. But we do have to assume it to believe the correctness of the answer, i.e., that this answer complies with the rules. After all, if W — T, which we have no reason to believe is incorrect, then all of the answer choices for Q1 are wrong. Is that not a logical flaw in the game? I'm not saying it prevents correct answers, but it could cause unwarranted uncertainty and thus delay.

Tinyosi1

@"steve-10" said:
Yes, as I indicated, the fact that (B) is correct for Q1 implies T—W.

No, it simply implies that this is a possibility. The fact that it is possible in one scenario does not mean it is always the case. We can only conclude that it is possible that T-W, not that it is required.

steve-10

I think you are saying that the order relation of T and W could change from day to day, which in the context of the game means more generally the unspecified order relations between T and I and between T and W could change from day to day. In that case, the correct answer to Q1 could alternatively have W—T instead of T—W.

The order relations that are specified all include the word "always." That lends support to your point.

BinghamtonDave

I just did this game. I'm not sure I am 100% clear on your issue. Q1 is asking for what could be a list. Answer choice (B) is a valid arrangement of the pieces. It would also be valid to have Traffic before Weather during the second segment. @Tinyosi1 is entirely correct on this.

Cant Get Right

@"steve-10" said:
The correct answer to Q1, the typical "acceptable configuration" question, implies T — W (where "—" is the usual notation indicating relative order).

Well, it does imply that T -- W is a possibility. T -- W does not violate, or indirectly force the violation of, any rules. That is an important inference, but it is important to differentiate that it is only an inference of possibility.