Idk if there others out there like me that love the practical-mechanical type indicator word exercises 7sage offers. For instance, the conditional indicators offered in the logic section of the course (“always, never, etc.”). These words have helped tremendously with speed and has taken a person who thought he could never get a logic game done in less than 20 minutes to this section being one of his most consistently highest scoring sections. The route application of these words helped, (I guess my intuition in regarding these words was flawed). After repeated application with right instruction, intuition carried me forward.
Anyways, I HATE making stupid mistakes in recording rules in logic games and these little errors an otherwise relatively easy game ugly. Some times I mess up recording sequencing rules. For instance, mis-recording the 5th of 6 rules in game : “P comes before C but after L” as P-C and P –L .” The correct translation is “L-P-C.” I always wished there was a way to record these rules without thinking, kind of like applying the logical indicators in in a quick-fire, low thought kind of way.”
I was thinking of a method of using relative chronological sequencing indicator words in hopes it would give a sort of quick fire application type of thing like conditional indicator words. I came up with a something that has 2 aspects.
Like Jy says “relationships are relational.” Arguments are premise conclusion support relationships; sufficient necessity relationships are just that etc. So too, are Sequencing relationships relating two idea to one another in a chronological relationship.
I believe there are Two types of situations regarding sequencing. One in which a quality in a game is being measured and one in which an inherently chronological order exists from left to right (often temporal chronology). The first scenario is discussed first. And has a little more variance than the 2nd scenario.
1st Scenario
In a mock logic game, say you are recording productive teams from most productive to least productive”
Most Product ___ ____ _____ ____ ____ ___ _ Least productive
By imagining an imaginary line in the middle of the board “ __ __ ___ l ___ ___ __ “ you can give yourself a benchmark. Then you can let the phrase in the rule (discussed just below) serve as introducing a relata/idea in this relationship that you visually hold on to and write down. The other idea/relata you throw toward the side of the bench mark indicated by the word in the introduction phrase.
Ex:
Most Product ___ ____ _____ ____ ____ ___ _ Least productive
“Team L is more productive than Team Q”
In this situation you can let the end of phrase (more productive than) give you the idea/reala to hold on to visually in your head. In this situation you visually hold on to Q, and write it on your paper. In relation to your imaginary benchmarks, look toward the quality dictated in the phrase (here, more productive). Throw the other idea toward the direction of the quality dictated in the phrase.
Ie. Write Q, I look to the left of the benchmark ( to the most productive side) and throw the other idea (L) to the left of Q (toward side in which the phrase talks about)
Written product: ( L – Q).
Z less productive than T.
Hold on to T; write T
Less productive is right of benchmark
Throw other idea (Z) on that side.
Written product: T – Z.
Essentially, if you establish a board up front, let the end term give you idea to hold on to and throw other idea on correct side of this idea in dictated by the bench mark and the board hen recording of the rules could be mechanical and quick maybe..hopefully?? I’m opening to hearing what you guys think
If the game was ranking from least productive to most productive, the method could still hold.
Least Product ___ ____ _____ ____ ____ ___ _ Most productive
“Team L is more productive than Team Q”
Let the end of phrase give you the idea/relata to hold on to visually in your head (Q). Write idea on your paper. In relation to your imaginary benchmark look toward the quality dictated in the phrase (here, more productive).
Look to most productive (the most productive is on the right) and throw the other idea to that side (L)
Written product : Q - L
I was stuck between B and C. I chose B b/c the stimulus and the answer Choice B have the similarity in that they deal with thing thins that are happening in the present or the past. Leaving their arguments completely valid. C is very also very valid. However, the conclusion talks about an event that is posterior to the poll talked about in the premises leaving the crazy possibility that by the time the election came the people whom lived outside of the city could've moved into the city and the conclusion wouldn't follow.Pulling for teeth on how to eliminate one of the answer choices. I still like my reasoning better than the LSAT's reasoning on this one. lol...