Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

I would love some feedback from 7Sagers on this LG realization I just had.

TheDeterminedCTheDeterminedC Alum Member
in Logic Games 1020 karma

I just finished going over a warm up piece from LG PT46 and had a bit of a realization during BR. I commented at the link below and I would absolutely love to know what other 7Sagers think about this added step going onto each LG game.

It's sorry it's so long. Thank you!!


  • AudaciousRedAudaciousRed Alum Member
    2689 karma

    Hmm.. this is interesting. And it makes sense. Reading the question stems to see if there are a number of MBT and MBF does seem to indicate some very hard set rules in every scenario the rules could create.... meaning it's not real open ended, and showing that we should only have so many options.
    I will be watching this thread for thoughts on this.

  • akistotleakistotle Member 🍌🍌
    9366 karma

    I think scanning questions first on LG is a good idea. I believe this is what @"J.Y. Ping" recommends.

    This is @TheDeterminedC's post on LSAT 46 - Section 4 - Game 2:

    This game made me think of a new step I will take for each game here on out. That is, I will take two seconds and scan the stems of each question when deciding if I should split the game, even if the game is open ended. I argue that with an open ended game or not, scanning and seeing that a game is full of global questions calls for splitting; and further, this process will work to my advantage. My reasoning is as follows:

    One should realize that after a quick scan, every question here is global (CBT, MBT or MBF), with the exception of the first one.

    Taking these few seconds will allow me to realize this is not actually the typical "rule driven games" that J.Y. was pointing out. In those games, the board is not complete like this game we have here. However, the difference stems from that fact that there are only global questions being asked for this game. This means that for each answer choice, you MUST either make a board or visualize the rules and inferences in order to determine if it is correct or not. This is in contrast to the "rule driven games" with boards that have many outcomes in that these ones will state "if" questions. In other words, the question stem specifically supplies new information that limits the outcome of the game. Because no new information is supplied in this particular game (realized by a quick scan of them), these 4 global questions entail about 20 or so game boards that have to be drawn out or realized.

    I think that despite intuition saying "there are too many game boards I'm not going to split," I believe it would be in anyone's best interest to do so.

    In this game at least, with J on both sides of tape one, it reduces down to 7 game boards for me (using a switch symbol on one board).
    Not only would you now have a solid grasp of how the rules interplay, you also have 7 completed boards for pretty much a 50/50 on tape one (either it's JJ or JF).

    This takes crucial time to do. Normally I'd say that splitting can sometimes be disadvantageous for the fact that the time drawing the boards up front might not pay off in the questions. I would confidently say that scanning these question stems rules out this disadvantage simply because the are all global questions with each answer choice entailing a (most likely) different game board.
    Another disadvantage is right up front. Despite seeing the open-ended game board and the question stems together telling me to split, there is a possibility that although I took the time to figure out the game boards for J J on tape one, the answer choices in every question could only use J F on tape one as the game board. Thus, time would be wasted.

    I argue that the time saved from scanning---realizing all questions are global---and writing out as many full game boards as possible outweighs the disadvantages. Logically, how likely would it be if all the answer choices addressed *only) the game boards of J F, which are not drawn out. I would say that this is unlikely, and the answer choices that do use J J in tape one would already have the written outcome. Thus, while answering 4 questions by drawing out 7 or so game boards might seem counterintuitive, it is sometimes in one's best interest to do so.

    Let me know what you think!

  • TheDeterminedCTheDeterminedC Alum Member
    edited August 2018 1020 karma

    Thanks for the response @akistotle!

    Yes! You are totally right about J.Y. advocating for skimming the questions, but on that particular game or any others like it, I think the skimming should be used as an indicator for the "exception" to a commonly held rule. The typical saying that goes around for LG is that if there are more boards then questions, it's not worth the time investment. With a ton of global questions, however, I think "4" of those questions amounts to substantially more game boards then one would think (somewhere around 15 or so). In the video explanation, J.Y. made a really opened-ended game board and hit the questions. For some people that works great for them and if they can do a game like this by doing so, then perfect.

    I just looked at the paper after my timed go and holy cow were there game boards in every open space possible. None of the game boards at that point can be utilized very easy at all. I don't know how I went about splitting each one----particularly what rules were forced based off the first placement and what can move ect.

    At the start of BR I just laughed at my PT paper where I could have relieved so much stress during that game and the rest of the test had I known how to react when the questions are all global.

    By the way, thanks for making the text show in here, I appreciate it.

  • TheDeterminedCTheDeterminedC Alum Member
    edited August 2018 1020 karma

    @AudaciousRed what you said makes total sense. You give a valid point that ACs also carry weight in restriction as well. Some MBT question ACs can be something simple like "C is before day 3," which is not alarming on an average game. So in that sense, maybe skimming ACs will help decipher this dilemma too. I don't even think you would have to read it at all either, it would just be looking for "if" on any global ACs. For instance, the second question in PT46 S4 G2 is a global question, but all 5 of the ACs start off with "if X then Y." Which basically means that each AC will offer new restrictions. So, while the game itself is not super restrictive, the new rules in each AC are specifically calling on one of those game boards out of however many there are. If the correct answer happens to be AC E, then that one question will take several minutes to complete. The next three questions are similar.

    Of course, all this would be done after drawing out rules and inferences. And by no means would I do this on every game, but I think one can judge the difficulty of a game when the board is finished... or lack thereof :) . Ultimately, this is really for an ease of mind process to use on test day I guess. I don't ever want to get hit with a curve ball on test day where 4 minutes into the game I realized I should have split, even though there were a number of boards. I did fine on the section but I'd rather put myself in a better position for a game if I am able to then take longer then necessary and have that become a stressor.

Sign In or Register to comment.