possible quick mechanical way to translate sequencing rules in logic games (open to thoughts, plz!)

jrkovals

Idk if there others out there like me that love the practical-mechanical type indicator word exercises 7sage offers. For instance, the conditional indicators offered in the logic section of the course (“always, never, etc.”). These words have helped tremendously with speed and has taken a person who thought he could never get a logic game done in less than 20 minutes to this section being one of his most consistently highest scoring sections. The route application of these words helped, (I guess my intuition in regarding these words was flawed). After repeated application with right instruction, intuition carried me forward.

Anyways, I HATE making stupid mistakes in recording rules in logic games and these little errors an otherwise relatively easy game ugly. Some times I mess up recording sequencing rules. For instance, mis-recording the 5th of 6 rules in game : “P comes before C but after L” as P-C and P –L .” The correct translation is “L-P-C.” I always wished there was a way to record these rules without thinking, kind of like applying the logical indicators in in a quick-fire, low thought kind of way.”

I was thinking of a method of using relative chronological sequencing indicator words in hopes it would give a sort of quick fire application type of thing like conditional indicator words. I came up with a something that has 2 aspects.

Like Jy says “relationships are relational.” Arguments are premise conclusion support relationships; sufficient necessity relationships are just that etc. So too, are Sequencing relationships relating two idea to one another in a chronological relationship.


I believe there are Two types of situations regarding sequencing. One in which a quality in a game is being measured and one in which an inherently chronological order exists from left to right (often temporal chronology). The first scenario is discussed first. And has a little more variance than the 2nd scenario.

1st Scenario

In a mock logic game, say you are recording productive teams from most productive to least productive”

Most Product ___ ____ _____ ____ ____ ___ _ Least productive


By imagining an imaginary line in the middle of the board “ __ __ ___ l ___ ___ __ “ you can give yourself a benchmark. Then you can let the phrase in the rule (discussed just below) serve as introducing a relata/idea in this relationship that you visually hold on to and write down. The other idea/relata you throw toward the side of the bench mark indicated by the word in the introduction phrase.

Ex:

Most Product ___ ____ _____ ____ ____ ___ _ Least productive

“Team L is more productive than Team Q”

In this situation you can let the end of phrase (more productive than) give you the idea/reala to hold on to visually in your head. In this situation you visually hold on to Q, and write it on your paper. In relation to your imaginary benchmarks, look toward the quality dictated in the phrase (here, more productive). Throw the other idea toward the direction of the quality dictated in the phrase.

Ie. Write Q, I look to the left of the benchmark ( to the most productive side) and throw the other idea (L) to the left of Q (toward side in which the phrase talks about)

Written product: ( L – Q).

Z less productive than T.

Hold on to T; write T

Less productive is right of benchmark

Throw other idea (Z) on that side.

Written product: T – Z.

Essentially, if you establish a board up front, let the end term give you idea to hold on to and throw other idea on correct side of this idea in dictated by the bench mark and the board hen recording of the rules could be mechanical and quick maybe..hopefully?? I’m opening to hearing what you guys think

If the game was ranking from least productive to most productive, the method could still hold.

Least Product ___ ____ _____ ____ ____ ___ _ Most productive

“Team L is more productive than Team Q”

Let the end of phrase give you the idea/relata to hold on to visually in your head (Q). Write idea on your paper. In relation to your imaginary benchmark look toward the quality dictated in the phrase (here, more productive).
Look to most productive (the most productive is on the right) and throw the other idea to that side (L)

Written product : Q - L

jrkovals

Scenario 2

In a game in which there is no give a specific quality that can vary in the order that appears on your board (Such as a simple temporal chronological order situation), this method becomes very easy (caveat discussed below).

Most Times Left side is before right side in temporal chronology.

Ex: A bus made 6 consecutive stops every hour for 6 hours.


1 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____ 6



In games like this I think there are simple indicator words in which a mechanical method can be applied.

I think there are two groups of words.
One group indicates 1st idea/relata ( here, 1 being to the left of 2 ) in relation to the other idea. The other group indicates a 2nd idea ( to the right). These words dictate relationships between 2 ideas being discussed. This relationship is linear chronology. You never see a chronological indicator words without at least 2 ideas being talked about. Much like you don’t see conclusion indicator without a premise somewhere nearby

Words that Introduce 1st chronological relationship relata

After

Posterior to

Post

( short list in the making )

Suggestions?


Ex: Jay threw the Frisbee after Timmy who the Frisbee after Gabe whom threw it after Ziggy.

Identify indicator word: (after; introduces 1st relata in relation to 2nd relata) id relata idea it introduces: ( Timmy), make idea 1st relata idea in relation to other relate idea (Jay)

Write: Timmy – Jay

Again..

Id word: after (1st idea/relata indicator); idea relata: Gabe; Make relata 1st in relation to other relata (T)

Gabe – Timmy

Tack on previous info (Timmy – Jay)

Product: Gabe – Timmy - Jay
Etc.

2nd groups words introducing 2nd relata ideas

These words introduce 2nd relata (in relation to first relata)


Before

Prior to


(short list in making )

Ex: “Rachel ate lunch prior to Susan whom ate lunch prior to Stacey whom ate lunch before Query.


Id word :Prior to (introduces 2nd relata idea in relation to to other idea). Indicator word introduces “Susan.” Make idea relata 2nd in relation to other idea relata

Rachel – Susan

Id word : prior to (introduces 2nd relat). Indicators word introduces: Stacey. Operation: Make relata introduces 2nd in relation to other relata

Susan-Stacey

Add info

Rachel -susan-Stacey

Etc.


Combo group 1 words and group 2 words

“Johnathon went to the store before David who went the store before Kenny who went to the store before Cartman but after Logan.”

Indicator word: before (group 2). Id relata it introduces: david. Make 2nd relata in relation to other relata (Johnatho)

(1) Jonathon -David (2).

Repeat…repeat


“ Kenny who went to the story before Cartman but after Logan”

Id word: before (group 2). Operation :Make idea it introduces ( Cartman) 2nd relata in relation to other relata. .

Kenny-Cartman;

Id word: after; idea relata it indrouces: Logan; operation 1st indicator word; make idea realata introduced 1st in relation to other relata.

Logan – Kenny


Note/ caveat : These words kind of assume a board like the board discussed in the first scenario with earlier on left and later on right. Most people who read left to right naturally visual temporal chronological events like this this relationship like that.

I feel like in a lot of games with pure temporal chronology the test writers will not try to go against the grain of earlier being to the left of later .

For instance, I think there are a fair amount of games that would rank people arriving at an opera from earliest to last with earliest on left and latest on right.

In this situation the words in the list above work like they did in the examples.

If for some reason the game dictated the order be from latest to arrive to earliest one to arrive, one can apply the bench mark method talked about in first scenario.


Latest__ ___ ___ __ __ ___ ___ __ Earliest

Dan arrived prior to Dave

Phrase introduce visual hold relata (Dave): prior to leans to earlier (right of imaginary benchmark); throw other relata idea (Dan) toward that way from middle bench mark.

Dave – Dan.

I feel like most times with games talking about temporal chronology stick with earliest being on the left and latest being on the right. In that case, one can rudimentarily apply the translation methods above.

jrkovals

sry about the typos. its really late. its too late to edit the post too. If you want something clarified i'd be willing to answer.