Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 71 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 13 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 111 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 31 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 636 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Red Herrings
clarissa.h
Alum Member
Hi 7Sagers!
I have noticed a number of times on PT's that every now and then, I run into a time sink on a game. When I check the 7Sage explanation, I discover that it was actually a rather simple game, that I've conquered much more challenging ones with way less feeling of oh-god-what-the-hell-is-this. So that's good news, but after reviewing the Logic Games Boards Cheat Sheet while watching explanation vids (a helpful tool to connect general theory to particular cases in games, as patterns start to emerge), I realized what was tripping me up every now and then on what should have been easy points for me: there was a RED HERRING in the game that was deliberately put there, ostensibly, to make me think there's an additional layer in my game board that I was missing. The test writers seem to like spending a fair amount of unnecessary words on a simple, not-that-restrictive distinction between players or something, but then they don't give you enough information to actually incorporate that distinction into your gameboard (at least for me to do so, and if I could, it would take more time than I have to comfortably finish the test).
Check out this example:
PT#55 Oct 2008 Game 3 - Sequencing Pure
The game starts off by announcing the first distinction: night vs. day shift. So now I'm already anticipating an IN/OUT set up. Next, it gives us the six players and a ranking task, suggesting sequencing. Okay. Got it. But I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop on the IN/OUT issue. The very next sentence feeds into that, by again highlighting the night/day distinction. I get what feels like valuable information for a game of IN/OUT with a sequencing task. SO, G T or S H are going to be the night, and the other 4 will be the day. So I'm thinking... okay, so it's IN/OUT, slots determined and sequencing task in subcategories. I've already bought into the time sink the test writers set up for me.
In an 8 line blurb before the list of sequencing rules, FIVE of those 8 lines were spent describing things in terms of this night/day distinction. Heck, the very purpose of the whole scenario the game describes is to COMPARE TWO GROUPS. No matter.
On a good morning, when I'm feeling like an LSAT baller, I would have wondered at first if I'm about to get an IN/OUT set up, and then gotten to the rules and seen that what I can draw is a sequencing board, with the typical sequencing rules, jot down a note of the two pairs that I'm told are night shift (in case I'm told what to do with that in a question), and call it a day. I'd have been on a mission, to get where I'm going, which is to the questions, where I can pick up points with the information I do have, and a mental footnote to remember the cliffhanger that may or may not require me to reconsider my set up (I hate when that happens, but accepting the possibility and moving on to find out would have been a lot quicker than getting stuck in a time sick of anxiety because I can't tolerate the uncertainty of that nasty little what-do-I-do-with-this-night/day-issue cliffhanger, staring at the page as I waffle over my setup, looking for something that, lo-and-behold, is not there).
On a bad morning, when I wake up feeling groggy and resenting the fact of this overinflated poriton of my law school app process, I am more like a new driver waiting to make a turn onto a busy road, sitting at a full stop with my blinker on, watching the cars go by, along with 2, maybe 3 solid opportunities to make the turn comfortably.
When I check my answers after a more or less demoralizing testing experience (which only reinfored the antipathy I had for this being something I need to do, because at some point I realize I'm distracted by my own hesitation as I move through the test, losing me points that could be the difference between a high 160's and low 170's - ugh), I am just kicking myself because the thing that stalwarted me the most was a freaking 5 minute standard sequencing game - one of the skills I can do almost reflexively. I'm normally happy to see those!
Moral of the story: another benefit of practice, beyond the level of certainty that comes with familiarity, is getting comfortable with red herrings. Zero in on them, and compare them to the kind of game that ACTUALLY has the issue you took the bait for in another game. Don't just say after watching the video, oh god, I can't believe I missed that, what an easy game, and then move on. Revisit your own thought process, because when something THAT easy sunk you THAT much time, you probably were tripping on the LSAT, who loves to be a tease. Find out what lured you in, and compare it to a similar game where the issue you anticipated actually activates.
I'm on the look out for a game that I can compare to the one I discussed in this post, and I'm sure it won't be hard to find a few given the issue tags marked on the list of games explanation videos. I'll post back when I find some. If anybody sees a game that could compare well (i.e. one where in/out and sequencing issues are both actually activating in the set up stage), I would love to hear from anyone so I can check it out.
Best!
Clarissa H.
I have noticed a number of times on PT's that every now and then, I run into a time sink on a game. When I check the 7Sage explanation, I discover that it was actually a rather simple game, that I've conquered much more challenging ones with way less feeling of oh-god-what-the-hell-is-this. So that's good news, but after reviewing the Logic Games Boards Cheat Sheet while watching explanation vids (a helpful tool to connect general theory to particular cases in games, as patterns start to emerge), I realized what was tripping me up every now and then on what should have been easy points for me: there was a RED HERRING in the game that was deliberately put there, ostensibly, to make me think there's an additional layer in my game board that I was missing. The test writers seem to like spending a fair amount of unnecessary words on a simple, not-that-restrictive distinction between players or something, but then they don't give you enough information to actually incorporate that distinction into your gameboard (at least for me to do so, and if I could, it would take more time than I have to comfortably finish the test).
Check out this example:
PT#55 Oct 2008 Game 3 - Sequencing Pure
The game starts off by announcing the first distinction: night vs. day shift. So now I'm already anticipating an IN/OUT set up. Next, it gives us the six players and a ranking task, suggesting sequencing. Okay. Got it. But I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop on the IN/OUT issue. The very next sentence feeds into that, by again highlighting the night/day distinction. I get what feels like valuable information for a game of IN/OUT with a sequencing task. SO, G T or S H are going to be the night, and the other 4 will be the day. So I'm thinking... okay, so it's IN/OUT, slots determined and sequencing task in subcategories. I've already bought into the time sink the test writers set up for me.
In an 8 line blurb before the list of sequencing rules, FIVE of those 8 lines were spent describing things in terms of this night/day distinction. Heck, the very purpose of the whole scenario the game describes is to COMPARE TWO GROUPS. No matter.
On a good morning, when I'm feeling like an LSAT baller, I would have wondered at first if I'm about to get an IN/OUT set up, and then gotten to the rules and seen that what I can draw is a sequencing board, with the typical sequencing rules, jot down a note of the two pairs that I'm told are night shift (in case I'm told what to do with that in a question), and call it a day. I'd have been on a mission, to get where I'm going, which is to the questions, where I can pick up points with the information I do have, and a mental footnote to remember the cliffhanger that may or may not require me to reconsider my set up (I hate when that happens, but accepting the possibility and moving on to find out would have been a lot quicker than getting stuck in a time sick of anxiety because I can't tolerate the uncertainty of that nasty little what-do-I-do-with-this-night/day-issue cliffhanger, staring at the page as I waffle over my setup, looking for something that, lo-and-behold, is not there).
On a bad morning, when I wake up feeling groggy and resenting the fact of this overinflated poriton of my law school app process, I am more like a new driver waiting to make a turn onto a busy road, sitting at a full stop with my blinker on, watching the cars go by, along with 2, maybe 3 solid opportunities to make the turn comfortably.
When I check my answers after a more or less demoralizing testing experience (which only reinfored the antipathy I had for this being something I need to do, because at some point I realize I'm distracted by my own hesitation as I move through the test, losing me points that could be the difference between a high 160's and low 170's - ugh), I am just kicking myself because the thing that stalwarted me the most was a freaking 5 minute standard sequencing game - one of the skills I can do almost reflexively. I'm normally happy to see those!
Moral of the story: another benefit of practice, beyond the level of certainty that comes with familiarity, is getting comfortable with red herrings. Zero in on them, and compare them to the kind of game that ACTUALLY has the issue you took the bait for in another game. Don't just say after watching the video, oh god, I can't believe I missed that, what an easy game, and then move on. Revisit your own thought process, because when something THAT easy sunk you THAT much time, you probably were tripping on the LSAT, who loves to be a tease. Find out what lured you in, and compare it to a similar game where the issue you anticipated actually activates.
I'm on the look out for a game that I can compare to the one I discussed in this post, and I'm sure it won't be hard to find a few given the issue tags marked on the list of games explanation videos. I'll post back when I find some. If anybody sees a game that could compare well (i.e. one where in/out and sequencing issues are both actually activating in the set up stage), I would love to hear from anyone so I can check it out.
Best!
Clarissa H.
Comments
Come back to this game after doing, say, 20-30 other games and see if the snag is still there. I had an experience with an RC passage (previously the bane of my existence and RC nemesis) that went along these lines and am happy to say that I was not (as) distracted by these red herrings as I have been in the past.