When writing LG rules, should I also do 1st Question (acceptable scenario)? JY says to do it?

youbbyun

So I've noticed that in recent commentaries, JY says that when you do a LG, as you write down the rules, for each rule you write, go down to the 1st question and eliminate AC's if that's an acceptable situation question.

That way, by the time you finish writing down your rules, you would've already finished the 1st question (if it's an acceptable situation question).

Is this protocol? Should we do this for every Logic Game? Why is this a good strategy?

Any advice or comments would be appreciated.

Thanks.

keets993

Yes, you should do it. It gives you more familiarity with the rules as you go through it one by one. You might also be able to see how an assumption you made about a rule might be wrong if you've eliminated all the answer choices. Memorizing rules really does play a role in being good at logic games, and doing acceptable questions while reading the rules helps with that.

samantha.ashley92

Yes. Also, there is the slightly more advanced concept of recognizing additional rules (when applicable). For example, you may figure out that if you plug in B somewhere, you have to pair it with C. I think you should do that if you can. But if you don't recognize anything, don't worry about it. So when I finish writing out all of my rules, I spend about 20 seconds just thinking about them. If I don't recognize anything in double-digit seconds, I'm not going to figure out anything before I get into the first few questions.

Bamboosprout

I think you should try it.
Personally, it doesn't work for me, because it distracts me from my process of making inferences and connecting it with other rules. And doing an acceptable situation question after making the inferences gives me some time to absorb, and helps me solidify my understanding.
Different things work for different people, though, so just try it out and see which works better for you.

jhbm_nyc

Checking the rules against the acceptable situation question one rule at a time reinforces what each rule looks like on the game board. More importantly, it provides a checkpoint for catching errors in your rule notation. If you check a rule you've just written down and it somehow eliminates three or four answer choices, that's a red flag that something is awry. If, on the other hand, you first write down all your rules and make your inferences and sub-game boards only to find out in the acceptable situation question that something is awry, that tiny error in your rule notation will have cost you precious minutes and maybe even the game. (Speaking from experience, lol.)

Tatyana L.

I tried that. I suspect that the rules for most people but not me. I'm very error prone. 95% of my errors comes from confusing "before" with "after", "odd" with "even", "over" with "under". That's why through multiple trial and errors I've arrived at the first question as a device to double check my rules. First I write the rules down. Then I take rule by rule and eliminate the first question options AND double check that I marked it correctly on my board. I admit that it costs me precious time, but the alternative is arriving at the last question and realizing that a tiny confusion has just ruined your entire game.

So, try the tried and true method, and if it doesn't work for you and you find something better, chuck the rule.

studyingandrestudying

Yes, try and see how it works, but make sure you've read all the rules first, maybe, and check your work. So agreeing with above.