Who should get the six workshop places?
You help allocate places for a fictional library workshop.
The question
The afternoon workshop has six places and 12 requests. The equivalent evening session can take everyone and all requesters can attend it. The coordinator makes the final allocation.
Give priority to people with no usable alternative. Use a lottery with one entry per person among equal claims.
“Recommend an allocation. Explain how the same rule applies when access changes.”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: What decides priority?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Use access first, then a draw for equal claims
The strong move. This uses both parts of the published rule.
Give places in request order
Tempting, but it misses something. Request order does not show who can attend the other session.
Reserve places for regular attendees
Tempting, but it misses something. The policy does not give priority for prior attendance.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I would check who can use the evening option, then draw among equal claims.”
Why it works: The goal is access to the workshop. Arrival order does not measure access to the alternative.
Step 2: How would you allocate now?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Draw among all 12 and offer the evening to the rest
The strong move. All claims are equal under the stated rule.
Ask the coordinator to pick six people
Tempting, but it misses something. An unexplained choice replaces the required tie-break.
Give all 12 an afternoon place
Tempting, but it misses something. The session has room for only six.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I would draw six names from 12. Each person has a 50% chance of an afternoon place and can use the evening session if they miss out.”
Why it works: Everyone has a usable alternative under the opening facts.
Step 3: What changes the allocation?
The coordinator verifies that four requesters depend on the last bus home at 18:00. The evening session runs from 18:30 to 20:30.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Keep all 12 in the same draw
Tempting, but it misses something. It ignores the priority rule for people without a usable alternative.
Offer all six to the group of four
Tempting, but it misses something. Each person needs one place. Two places would go unused.
Reserve four and draw the remaining two
The strong move. It serves the four priority claims and keeps the tie-break for the others.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Give four priority places. Draw the other two from eight people, so each has a 25% chance of an afternoon place.”
Why it works: The four requesters can no longer use the evening session. The other eight still have equal claims.
Step 4: Explain the decision to the group
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Give the rule, the draw and the evening option
The strong move. People can see how the policy applies and what they can still attend.
Say only that the coordinator changed the result
Tempting, but it misses something. The explanation omits the verified access constraint and tie-break.
See how a strong candidate says it
“We gave priority to people who cannot use the evening session. We drew the remaining two places among equal claims. The evening session can take everyone else.”
Why it works: The group needs the rule and the remaining option. Individual travel details do not explain the process further.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Give four priority places and draw two from the other eight.
- Because
- Four people have no usable alternative. The other eight have equal claims.
- What would change it
- If the evening session becomes usable for all 12 again before allocation, draw all six places among all 12.
Common traps
- Treat equal chances as fair after access differs.
- Disclose personal travel details to justify the rule.
Check your answer
- I used the stated goal.
- I checked who had a usable alternative.
- I kept the same tie-break.
- I explained the rule without naming people.
Last reviewed Nov 11, 2026