Seeking strategy to avoid getting stuck during Logic Games

FlyEaglesFly

Hi all - So I've been studying my butt off since January and will be taking the test on Monday and also am registered in September.

My greatest fear, which is something I have been worried about since the beginning, is getting absolutely stuck on a logic game and thus ruining my overall score. It does occasionally happen (e.g. last night on PT 79 when I missed a quarter of the questions), and I end up with like a -8 or -9. Yet, I have gotten plenty of great scores on LR sections during PT including a -0, -1, -2, etc.

So I am seeking strategies if something like this occurs. Usually, when it does, it's because I can't figure out how to properly split a game board (or if I even should split), and/or I am just paralyzed in determining a proper approach to the questions. Furthermore the game just feels like it is beyond my ability to solve.

Overall I have probably spent more time working on Logic Games than anything else, so I would hate to crumble on this section! Especially because I am feeling more or less confident with my abilities on the other 2 sections.

Thanks all would love to hear your thoughts!

Louislepauvre

Not sure if I'm saying anything original here, but a clear-cut method for looking where to split is a variable in the rules that is mentioned multiple times. It's very restricted, so that's usually a good place to start looking to split. If you don't have an a-ha moment in regards to splitting, then go to the questions that involve additional conditions, i.e, the "If" questions. Sometimes in doing the questions, I pick up on inferences as a I go. It's inferior to solving the game with all possible worlds, but sometimes it's the best I can do. Plus, making worlds is sometimes not worth it because it can be time consuming and maybe not as helpful for the questions.

Ohnoeshalpme

Becoming fast with easy/medium normal games can give you the time that you sometimes need for a harder game. In this way, even if stumble on a game, you can use all of the cached time from the other questions to help you go -0 on a hard game. With time, you can brute force most of the answers even in really hard games.

Lucas Carter

Find solace and confidence in all of your practice and skills. Know that you have seen most of LSAC's tricks and that they are just trying to paralyze you with fear. Take stock of what pieces you have left and try to keep moving. Don't be afraid to reset with a few deep breaths.

Sami

Split should be seen as a way to represent rules or variables rather than a means to solve the game. When I am considering the rules for a game, I am thinking about what's the best way to see this rule; 1. on the side written down, 2. on the master game board, 3. as a split. I prefer always having a rule visually represented and the more a rule is difficult or the variable is a huge player, the more seriously I consider it as a candidate for a split. For example, if representing a rule or variable through a split would mean I will not have 3 of my 4 most difficult rules written on the side, that variable/rule is great candidate for a split.

Off the top of my head a game that comes to my mind is the famous CD game where you are determining which of the old and new cd's go on sale. If you take a look, the jazz variable is a huge player for that game and right away 3 of the 5 rules written are completely represented visually if you put the three different ways jazz cd's can be sorted. At the end you have 4 game boards with only 1 rule for two of them and they are the easy ones, the other two are completely solved.

When people split, I see sometimes that they will end up having like 8 game boards. That's what usually tells me that the way a person is looking at what splitting means is wrong. If you are just looking at splitting as a way to represent the rules, I don't think I have ever ended up having more than 5 games boards. If I chose to split, the average game boards ends up being 3. I still have a lot of variables and some rules that may still be in play for each game boards but its simpler to go through.

A strategy that really helped and was the biggest game changer for me was when I incorporated putting my pencil down when I first come upon a new game. You want to just put your pencil down and read and get a sense of what rules may be difficult or what variables are the biggest players. This helps you figure out a plan for a game before you start the game. It's a hard thing to implement because people do not like just thinking, they want to be writing stuff down as they encounter rules and variables in stimulus. But I can't say enough how important it is to first just think about how a game is being pulled and how you would like to make it easier on yourself.

Stepping back from a game can give you a better overall picture about if you would like to use a rule or variable as split. For example a block is one of the things that is a great candidate for a split. But whether I chose to split on it depends on other rules of the game. If I see other rules would be affected a lot by its placement and it would help get rid of most rules - I am going to use it as a split. But just because a rule is a block doesn't mean I am going to split it as other rules may not tie to it. In order to make this determination I have to step back a little and just consider things.

I hope this helped. Let me know if you have more questions.

keets993

If you're feeling paralyzed or stuck, glance at the questions. Are there a lot of questions asking you for flat out inferences without providing additional premises? Are there more questions that provide you with additional premises? If so, do those first. I've found that the LSAT usually forces you to realize the inference halfway through the game if you haven't already figured it out up-front.

Also, just remember that all games are rule driven. Yes, there are games where you can make inferences up-front and split them effectively to diminish the amount of worlds available, but those inferences are still rule-driven. So when you come across a question, always look back at your rules and your game pieces and take it one step at a time. Eliminate the answer choices that obviously contradict your rules. Map out the remaining if you need to.

As for splitting, @Sami covered it pretty well. If you think that certain rules are better explored by splitting the game board and piecing them then do it. Sometimes you'll see additional inferences and other times you don't. But taking the 10 seconds upfront to split and find out nothing happens is better than approaching the questions with your mind clouded with the unsurity of 'should I have split' when you're panicky anyway.

FlyEaglesFly

Thanks all - some great advice here!