Question #1681

"MKM" box

Started by Gabby_teixeira · started 2020-03-27 18:26 · last activity 2020-08-24 19:07 · 6 replies

I don't understand how this was interpreted as a "must" box. How I interpreted it was that IF there's a case where M has a space between another M, THEN, K goes between, rather than, "MKM" are always joined as one. In other words, I would think there could be a scenario of ""MM" "KK", or even "MMKK", but that doesn't seem to be the case. Help me understand the language here better, thanks!

Replies

  1. shunhe · 2020-03-28 15:28

    Hi @Gabby_teixeira, Thanks for the question! Take a look at the fifth rule: Kurt stocks the only aisle between the two aisles that Manny stocks. This rule is very important and tells us a few things: 1. M stocks two aisles. 2. There is only one aisle between the two aisles that M stocks. 3. K is the person who stocks this aisle. As a result, we know that there must be an MKM block, and that’s thanks to rule 5. Imagine, for example, your MM/KK/MMKK cases. Well, all of these would violate rule 5, because we know that there has to be an aisle between the two aisles that M stocks, and that aisle has to be filled by K, a condition that isn’t met in those examples you mentioned. The rule does NOT read, for example, “if M stocks two aisles, then K stocks the only aisle between the two.” There is no conditional language in this rule: it just straight up tells us that M stocks two aisles, and K stocks the only aisle between them. Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any further questions that you might have.

  2. Irina · 2020-03-28 23:49

    Hi @Gabby_tiexeira, Since the language here is not conditional, the rule indicates that K stocks an aisle between the aisles that M stocks. The conditional rule would be written similar to: If M does not stock two consecutive aisles, then K stocks an aisle between the aisles that M stocks. This rule would leave open the possibility that M does stock two consecutive aisles as you have suggested in your examples. Let me know if this helps.

  3. Gabby_teixeira · 2020-03-29 13:05

    Super helpful, thanks!

  4. lgriffon22069 · 2020-07-22 16:25

    I have a question pertaining to the game setup. How was she able to conclude that the proportion had to be 2-2-2-2-1 and not the possibility of it being either 2-2-2-1-1-1 or 2-2-1-1-1-1-1?

  5. lgriffon22069 · 2020-07-22 16:25

    I have a question pertaining to the game setup. How was she able to conclude that the proportion had to be 2-2-2-2-1 and not the possibility of it being either 2-2-2-1-1-1 or 2-2-1-1-1-1-1?

  6. hterhune86 · 2020-08-24 19:07

    I have a question pertaining to the game setup. How was she able to conclude that the proportion had to be 2-2-2-2-1 and not the possibility of it being either 2-2-2-1-1-1 or 2-2-1-1-1-1-1?

Sign in to reply.