Hi. Im studying for the June LSAT and (like most people) am having trouble with SE questions. While watching on of JY's game explanation videos for PT 66 and noticing some differences in they way he set up his board and they way I set up mine, I thought of a potential strategy that may or may not be good and was hoping to get some feedback from others about what they might think of it.

Normally, I have not bothered to even try to answer SE questions on timed PT's and had adhered to this in this case (PT 66, section 3, Q11). However, upon my first reworking of the game I attempted it and actually found it to be relatively easy. The key was that (unlike JY's) my boards had been split on the node of the exact inference that was being substituted. Having these relevant sub-game boards already at my disposal saved me the time and trouble of possibly splitting on that inference for the question, and were extremely helpful in the knock out/sneak in process. Perhaps more importantly, having already worked the game and questions with an understanding of that relevant rule as the primary determinant of the possible worlds of the game had instilled me with a deep understanding of how that rule functioned in the creation of worlds by the time I came to the final question and allowed me to quickly and confidently asses the answer choices.

The potential strategy I am putting up for discussion is whether or not it could be helpful to, at the start of each new game, check the final question of that game to see if it is SE. If it is, then might the rule that is being replaced within it be the rule that implies the key inference along which you should strongly consider splitting your board? I feel as if this step could easily be added to the checklist of things to do at the start of each game and could be extremely beneficial. I am not suggesting a rigid following of this and I am sure that in some cases it is best to split along nodes that are not mentioned in SE questions. However, after looking through some past games that include SE questions, it seems to me that these games are often structured towards building an understanding of the inferences created by the rule being replaced, an understanding that must be funneled into the last Q for a final comprehensive test. At the very least, if it doesn't make since to split along the replaced rule, knowing the SE Q is coming, and having the functioning of the rule in the back of your head as you work through the Q's, might be very helpful.