Copy of a conversation with ChatGPT to review logical steps for the Example PSE

You're on the right track—your approach demonstrates clear logical thinking, a good understanding of the problem, and effective decomposition of the problem into smaller steps. Here's a detailed review based on your goals:

✅ What You're Doing Well

The structure is logically sound and complete Your approach covers all possible valid combinations of inputs based on the provided rules. This ensures that the function will return the correct result for any input among "rock", "paper", or "scissors".
The steps are language-agnostic You've avoided using any Python-specific syntax or terminology. The instructions are described using logic and plain language, which makes them transferable to other languages.
You clearly prioritize handling ties first This is efficient and shows good reasoning. It simplifies the problem by removing a category of inputs early.
Your reasoning and outcomes are clearly explained Each branch of logic contains a rationale (e.g., if player_2 is scissors, player_1 wins), which shows you understand why that branch leads to the result. This is critical for technical communication.

🔍 Suggestions for Improvement

Be explicit that all inputs are assumed valid While you've generally stayed focused on the problem’s core logic, it would be useful to clarify—at the start of your approach—that you're assuming inputs will always be one of "rock", "paper", or "scissors", as noted in the problem. This shows you're aware of the scope and aren't overlooking potential edge cases unintentionally.
Step 2–4: Improve consistency in phrasing and reasoning Each block for "rock", "paper", and "scissors" follows the same structure, which is great. However, to improve clarity:
- Use consistent language like “else” rather than “otherwise” if you’re making a logical distinction.
- Instead of saying “must be paper,” say “then player_2 played the move that beats player_1, so Player 2 wins.” This clarifies the reasoning, not just the outcome.
Example refinement:
```
- if player_2 is "scissors", then rock beats scissors, so Player 1 wins
- else, paper beats rock, so Player 2 wins
```
Consider grouping by outcome if discussing alternatives While your method of checking by player_1’s move is solid and easy to follow, for completeness in your explanation, you might note that an alternative would be to group decisions by winning relationships (e.g., "rock beats scissors, paper beats rock, scissors beats paper"). You don’t have to change your approach—just showing awareness of other valid structures helps demonstrate deeper understanding.

✅ Evaluation Against Your Goals

Goal	Evaluation
Break problem into smaller steps	✅ Yes, clear logical stages
Show why each step matters	✅ Yes, especially in tie logic and win cases
Avoid code syntax	✅ Fully language-agnostic
Clear enough for another developer	✅ Yes, with minor clarity improvements suggested above

🟢 Final Suggestion

Your approach is solid, well-structured, and demonstrates good problem-solving thinking. With slight refinements in phrasing to emphasize why outcomes are correct (not just what to return), you’d make it even more useful for communicating with other developers or preparing for interviews.

Let me know if you'd like help rewriting your approach with those tweaks, or if you want to practice using a different reasoning structure.

In the suggestions for improvement, I could use clarification on point 3 "Consider grouping by outcome if discussing alternatives". How would this demonstrate deeper understanding?

Great question — let's unpack that suggestion more clearly.

🔁 What does “grouping by outcome” mean?

In your current approach, you group the logic by what player_1 chooses, and then determine the outcome based on what player_2 plays:

If player_1 is "rock":
    - If player_2 is "scissors": Player 1 wins
    - Else: Player 2 wins
...

An alternative way to structure the logic is to group by winning relationships — essentially, by the actual rules of the game:

If player_1 beats player_2 according to game rules:
    - Player 1 wins
Else if player_2 beats player_1:
    - Player 2 wins
Else:
    - It's a tie

This structure focuses directly on outcome logic (who wins) instead of one player’s move. It's more abstract, and it highlights the core rule of the game: what beats what.

🧠 Why does this show deeper understanding?

It shows that you understand the underlying relationship that governs all the possible outcomes — not just how to step through conditionals.

Here's what it demonstrates:

Pattern recognition: You're recognizing that there are only three "winning" pairs:
- ("rock", "scissors") → Player 1 wins
- ("scissors", "paper") → Player 1 wins
- ("paper", "rock") → Player 1 wins
Rule abstraction: You’re abstracting the idea of “what beats what” as a reusable rule — a fundamental property of the game — instead of repeating logic for each possible move.
Scalability and generalization: If the game ever expanded (e.g., Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock), your thinking is already structured around relationships, making it easier to extend.
Separation of concerns: You’re separating the comparison logic from the actual move values, which is good practice in software design and improves clarity and maintainability.

📌 So to clarify:

You don’t need to structure your approach this way — your current method is valid and readable. But showing that you're aware of different ways to organize logic based on what the problem is really about (the relationships between moves) signals that you’re:

not just solving the problem procedurally
thinking more abstractly
able to adapt your solution method depending on the situation

It’s like saying: “I understand this is a logic relationship problem, not just a branching problem.”

Let me know if you’d like to try rewriting your approach using the rule-based/outcome-based structure as practice.

ada-instructors/example_pse_logical_steps_review.md