Question about Chart vs. Grouping Game board set up

vanessa fisher

Hey all,

So I realize J.Y's general rule for when to use a chart vs. when to use a standard grouping game board is that if the variables are only used once (are exhaustible) than use the regular grouping game board, and if the variables can be used more than once (inexhaustible) then use the chart. This generally works, but I find there are exceptions to this rule on certain games.

One example is game 3 in the C2 test. It's the game where you have to design three tricolor costumes, but the colors can be used more than once.
For this one, I found the standard grouping game set up way more helpful than a chart, and I noticed that J.Y also uses a standard grouping board.
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-c2-section-1-game-3/

I'm wondering if there is something about the game that makes it unique that I'm just not seeing?

Would really appreciate any insight as when to use chart vs. grouping is one of the only areas left I still feel a little unsure on.
thanks!

acsimon

As you've said, the heuristic is usually helpful but not always. I usually consider games with repeats where there's more than 3-4 group categories as apt for a chart. For instance, if 5 or 6 repair people can either be certified in repairing a vcr, a tape recorder, or a tv, then I'd use a chart. But, if its like...here are four colors and a florist needs to make three bouquets out of them, then I go with the regular grouping game set up.

I was thinking that maybe the principle I use is if there is a significant difference between the repeatable items and the base categories that I choose, but this can't be right. I would think that if I had five such categories and five items (repeatable) then I would probably do a five by five chart and fill it in accordingly.

In any case, I think that a lot of games that cry out for charts are 5-7 by 3-4. Anyways, just my two cents

Alex

@acsimon said:
As you've said, the heuristic is usually helpful but not always. I usually consider games with repeats where there's more than 3-4 group categories as apt for a chart. For instance, if 5 or 6 repair people can either be certified in repairing a vcr, a tape recorder, or a tv, then I'd use a chart. But, if its like...here are four colors and a florist needs to make three bouquets out of them, then I go with the regular grouping game set up.

I was thinking that maybe the principle I use is if there is a significant difference between the repeatable items and the base categories that I choose, but this can't be right. I would think that if I had five such categories and five items (repeatable) then I would probably do a five by five chart and fill it in accordingly.

In any case, I think that a lot of games that cry out for charts are 5-7 by 3-4. Anyways, just my two cents

I think this is a great assessment. I always used to wonder when to use a chart when I first started games. I think now that I've done enough, I sort of just "know" when a chart will work. Definitely when I see most 5-7 by 3-4 groups, then it's chart time. I can't even imagine doing some of the grouping games the way Powerscore taught me.

vanessa fisher

@acsimon
cool thanks very much for your thoughts, I'll play around with it

OlamHafuch

For what it's worth, I happen to think that Manhattan's way of attacking this type of grouping game (they call it open grouping) is the most intuitive, and the easiest way to catch all the inferences. This is the one time that I've felt that someone else's approach is superior to J.Y.'s

vanessa fisher

@uhinberg
Can you possibly explain the open grouping technique? Or even just how you recognize the difference. For me, the simple grouping set up or chart does work for all types of games, my confusion is more around identifying initially which one to use on some of the questions like the one posted above

acsimon

Just thinking, there are two other considerations to keep in mind here. One is whether the game pieces can double up (or more) within a category (which calls for a regular grouping game set up) and also whether the groups are limited in the amount of pieces they contain. If so, again it urges a regular grouping game set up (in these repeatable pieces games).

vanessa fisher

@acsimon
That makes a lot of sense to me, thanks! That would explain why the tri-colored game would fit better with a regular grouping board
I knew there was some piece I was missing

jeremyknight99

Wanted to bump this conversation, which I found specifically timely when analyzing PT 82 game 4.

Removed by admin. Do not talk specifics about PT82 until it is released to the public.

acsimon

Hmm...thinking again about this makes me think that there is probably a taxonomy that could be provided for logic game boards which itself could be embedded into a flow chart of how to go about completing a given logic game. It might actually require a great deal of information, but it seems like it would be useful for reference. One would still need to master the content on such a flow-chart in real time--something that is already done by top scores (implicitly)--but perhaps an explicit flowchart can help with the speed of that process. And obviously, the flowchart would need to be continuously expanded for miscellaneous games (which might, in the future, repeat themselves?).

I also would add that chart-games often have rules with language that is comparative or numerical. Things like "X has more kinds of tests than Y", or "Z has exactly 3 kinds of tests". More difficult for charts, visually and conceptually, are the games that involve a lot of conditional rules. I'm sorry that that particular game tripped you up. I always hate when I realize, after two minutes go by, that I probably should be using a different game board and debate (more time!) whether I should go back and redo it or "trudge on".

Anyways, I don't have the motivation to start in on one but it seems that, in principle, one can do it.---A.c.S