LG Brute force

GraceLUX

Hi! When I try to brute force answer choices in LG, I usually try to do the ones with the most restricted variables first. Sometimes that gets me to find the right answer at the first try, but sometimes the right answer is just A. As I was picking answers, I don't get to A until the 3/4ish try. Is it just because the As are kind of most painful so they stick out to me, or is it actually more common for brute force Qs to have A/B as answers? What are people's brute force strategies for CBT Qs with no additional premises and no obvious inferences?
For context I am taking LSAT this Saturday, but my score still fluctuates quite a bit in the 170-177 range. I am following the forum's advice to try to figure out weak spots in order to explain the fluctuations. I find that when I spend too much time on brute force Qs, I would have to rush through the last 3-4 Qs leading to mistakes.
Thank you so much!

blanklaw

I really think that the a huge part of LG is understanding the restrictions of the game pieces/rules.
A sort of trick I've picked up (haven't seen anyone else do this yet) is to take the acceptable situation given and reconsider all the pieces set in their position. I see what pieces are interchangeable and which ones could've switched places, etc. This gives me the advantage of practicing with the rules and making up a bunch of possible scenarios without actually writing them all out.
Many times, I've found that doing this helped me in those general CBT or even MBT.
Another thing with brute forcing AC is trying to skeletally play out the scenario in your head. If there are no immediate errors or things that trigger that would make you hesitate, then start sketching. Otherwise, you save a lot of time if you've figured out the error in your head and sketched one less answer.

Hope this helps!

GraceLUX

Thank you so much! I actually also use your first method if I understand you correctly. e.g. If P and Q are interchangeable, like they are both floaters or they have the same restraint, and I have two answer choices say C-P,S, D, Q,S, then C and D must both be wrong because there can't be 2 right answers. Is this what you're referring too?

blanklaw

That's a very helpful method-- I definitely like using that as well. The tactic I was describing is this:

Let's say I start off with a basic sequencing game and for I've figured out the correct answer (one that follows all the rules) for the acceptable situation. Let's say it's AC A and the pieces are arranged as A, V, Q, X, Y, and Z from first to last. After copying down this scenario into onto a gameboard, I would study this answer and look at whether, for example, the rules would allow me to switch A and Q in this situation, or to put Q last and move everything else around to be considered an ok setup.

In other words, I am really taking stock of my given scenario and noticing what HAS to be where in this situation and whether or not things could easily move around. Often, I'll refer back to this acceptable answer gameboard for eliminating/choosing CBT and MBT-- I'll be able to more easily manipulate the pieces in my head, since I already have a written scenario in front of me, to see what can or can't work.

joshkobusinski

When I brute force, I do what you do. It helps me as often as it "hurts" me in the sense that yes, sometimes the right answer was A and I could have saved time. Other times, the answer was E and I found it almost right away by looking at easier to test ACs. I don't think you need to dedicate much brain power to things like this because it is really just a game of chance where the right answer was placed. You're better off establishing a protocol and following it. I wouldn't waste a single thought on "oh if my system here was different I would have got there sooner." If your system is refined and you use it well, you will have enough time to finish every LG section with high accuracy.

GraceLUX

Thank you so much! That makes a lot of sense and I would try your method! Also I think it makes sense not to overthink the chance aspect, thanks!