Mastering logic games

jimenezja.jj

I'm currently working on the logic games bundle. While I've been getting -1 or -2 per game untimed I continue to test every answer choice even after getting an answer just to be sure it's correct. I'm wondering if this will hinder my speed while doing actual timed games. Should I just pick the correct answer and continue or actually double check. At this point I'm focusing on accuracy not speed. Any comments would help. Thank you

Cant Get Right

You've got to trust your set up. Once you pick your answer, move on. Then, if you've got time left at the end, return to double check.

hlsat180

@jimenezja.jj said:
Should I just pick the correct answer and continue or actually double check.

How does Question type or POE fit into your methodology? Or are you just checking every answer in order?

Some Q types (e.g., acceptable situation, CBT/CBF) use POE as the most efficient method; the answer will be last remaining (just move on unless you need to "test" your diagram/rules). For certain Q types (MBT/MBF) you should NOT have to check further. Sometimes if unsure between two answers, test them both (note the difference in checking two possibles rather than EVERY answer). Or failing time management (e.g., 5min left for final game) your score will benefit from moving briskly rather than testing every remaining answer choice. So the rule is not "always or never" but rather "depends" on your confidence and situation.

Of course mindlessly testing every answer choice will negatively affect your timing. Therefore, even if focusing on accuracy at this point, practice identifying which questions require POE and save the 100% testing for a BR afterwards. With unlimited time you should be -0 per game, not -1/-2 per game. Always figure out and fix what you are doing wrong in terms of methodology before proceeding further. You want to reinforce good rather than bad habits, plus wisely use rather than burn precious practice LSATs.

I also recommend you begin timing every game, if only to establish and track your baseline. Start your timer at zero and click stop when you are complete. Track your time (before each BR) and try to do better next time. When this time comes down to acceptable levels (while maintaining accuracy) shift to full timed sections. Repeat this process for timed sections before shifting to timed PTs. This is an evolution rather than a lock-step schedule.

jimenezja.jj

Thank you both. @hlsat180 @"Cant Get Right"

MrSamIam

I can't remember when it was, but a similar question was answered earlier...there's a ton of great advice in that thread.
Anyhow, like @"Cant Get Right" has mentioned, trust your set-up. Ideally, you want to spend a fair amount of time up front. In other words, really focus on setting up a top-notch diagram. You'll notice that when you skimp out on the diagram, you end up paying for it on the questions.
Make a solid diagram, double check the diagram/rules if you have to, then jump into the questions. Once you see an answer, pick it.
What I have noticed is that 9/10 times, double checking is just my way of reassuring myself that I got the right answer. And 9/10 times, it ends up being a waste of precious time.

allison.gill.sanford

I would not practice a methodology that you don't intend to carry into your administration. Pretty early on, you need to establish habits, and if you have a habit of checking every single answer choice on all LG, you'll internalize that habit and it will become a time waster later when it matters. At this point in your prep, I think it's fine to work on games for as long as they take you (mostly because you are experimenting and getting your mind to engage with a new task), but don't consistently do things on the games you wouldn't want to do later. For example, if a game takes you 18 minutes the first time you see it, go ahead and work the whole game that way... then watch JY's video, and repeat the game his way. Taking time at this point isn't bad, but you should keep track of your time on each game.

stepharizona

@allison.gill.sanford said:
if you have a habit of checking every single answer choice on all LG, you'll internalize that habit and it will become a time waster later when it matters.

@allison.gill.sanford Are you recommending to not check each answer choice, or are you saying if you dont internalize that now, it will waste time later if you flip flop and then do it on test day?

allison.gill.sanford

@stepharizona I'm saying both of those things. You don't need to do strict POE on all LG questions. If you know you're right according to your diagram on a clear cut question (such as MBF), there's no need to check all the other ACs. Other question types require you to eliminate to whittle down to the correct answer (such as CBT, where you should first determine which 4 ACs are MBF). Mike Kim calls these primary and backup strategies -- your primary strategy on certain questions should be to search for the right answer, and backup strategy is to eliminate the wrong ones. If you have the LSAT Trainer, look on page 373 for his chart for how to approach different kinds of questions on LG.

jimenezja.jj

@allison.gill.sanford Hey, I noticed you mentioning the trainer to see how to approach different kind of questions. I skipped logic games in the traineR I felt they were using two different methodologies compared to 7sage and it was confusing me. 0_o Maybe i should attempt to revisit my trainer and try to use some of the strategies.

allison.gill.sanford

@jimenezja.jj Yeah the Trainer is fantastic! I think it pairs well with 7Sage, there are some differences in technique with the games, but you can use parts of both methods and figure out what you prefer. I primarily used JY's system, but the Trainer had useful drills for making number inferences, and I liked the introduction to diagramming. Ultimately I worked through all of the Trianer and all of 7Sage and picked my own hybrid game strategy after seeing those options. One part of Mike Kim's system I like is using subscripts for when game pieces have additional qualities (green tyrannosaur figurine, for example), which JY doesn't really use.

jimenezja.jj

Oh, ok. I will try and use Mike Kim's methods and try to mix them both hopefully it helps. I'm having trouble working through the bundle since the explanations go a bit fast for me. Hopefully I will be able to make more inferences incorporating Mike Kim's strategies. Thank you @allison.gill.sanford

stepharizona

@allison.gill.sanford took my first test in ages last night and realized I do mark and move on for the most part. Still check every answer quickly in LR and RC

allison.gill.sanford

@jimenezja.jj just keep working through the bundle! The inferences will come... just drill. And you can slow down the video speed if that helps, or watch the videos multiple times. You certainly don't want to move on if you don't understand what JY is doing, so I really encourage you to make sure you understand the strategy he implements and why.
@stepharizona great, sounds like you're on the right track! And speedy POE on LR and RC is also a good strategy.

hlsat180

Please clarify me if I misunderstand but, AFTER making a final selection, what circumstances justify immediately continuing to check the other non-selected answers?

My understanding is that POE is always used (1) BEFORE final selection in order to avoid attractive-but-wrong choices and allow more time to dial-in on the remaining contenders; and (2) in LR/RC. This is different from using remaining time AFTER completing the section to go back and double-check.

Jonathan Wang

I'm genuinely curious why "read every choice" in LR/RC is a largely-uncontested piece of advice, but "don't even look at the others one you see one you like" is the standard in LG.

If you understand a question so well (in any context) that you can affirmatively predict/identify/select the 'obviously correct' answer to such a high degree of confidence that you feel actively good about straight up ignoring the other choices and not even bothering to evaluate them, doesn't that also mean you should be capable of de-justifying them quickly if you had to? Because if you're not capable of that, how can you be THAT SURE that you're correct? And if something else does catch your eye and you can't immediately eliminate it, doesn't that warrant some exploration?

Just as relevantly, why does any of that change when you shift from LR/RC to LG? Whatever the argument is for not reading every choice in LG (it takes too long, it's a waste of time once you have your answer, it could confuse you, it tempts you to test everything), couldn't you make those exact same arguments against reading everything in LR/RC? It's not like LR/RC answers are somehow 'less right' than LG answers.

If you choose to pick and go, you're free to do so; just understand that you're making a conscious decision to cut a corner in order to save X amount of time. Depending on what that X is, it may even be worth it from a short-term score-maximization standpoint, and is often practical to do so. But I would humbly suggest that the better (or even parallel) path is to actually work on decreasing that "X" instead of sweeping it under the rug. Timing issues are skills deficits, and you don't close a skills deficit by finding ways to avoid doing what you should be. If you don't have time to check this other answer choice, is it because it's the wrong thing to do or because you're not fluent enough in the logic to do it quickly enough?

For my part, I cannot ever imagine selecting an answer on any section of this test without looking at all 5 choices first.

Jonathan Wang

@hlsat180 said:
Please clarify me if I misunderstand but, AFTER making a final selection, what circumstances justify immediately continuing to check the other non-selected answers?

I think you're correct that there is a difference between "POE" as you've defined it and "double-checking". I think the issue here is that, at least in my opinion, you have no business making a "final" selection at all if you haven't even looked at the other, non-selected answers. Or, put another way, part of the process of making a final selection for me involves looking at and at evaluating the other answer choices at least cursorily (I think that's a word). This is at odds with the advice people give in LG to not even bother looking at the other answers if you see yours there.

It occurs to me that there could also potentially be some confusion between "POE" as a question-answering strategy (as in, I have no clue what the right answer is, but I eliminated these other ones so I'll pick this one) and "POE" as a general term (simply eliminating wrong answers as you come across them). I "POE" generally in every question because I eliminate wrong choices as well as affirm the right one, but I don't use the "POE" question-answering strategy except as an absolute last resort. So maybe I'm just interpreting the advice wrong?

Cant Get Right

We are taught in the curriculum to, in many situations, not try remaining answer choices once we have identified what we think is the correct answer in LG, and this is reinforced throughout the LG videos. I had been under the impression that, at least for LG, this was 7Sage orthodoxy. Have I misunderstood the lessons or is this just one of those debates where everyone has to figure out what works for them?

Alejandro

@"Jonathan Wang" we might do it because some answers might be complete gibergaber with convoluted grammar that takes us a while to decrypt. Reading over such answer choices and eliminating them quickly might essentially be the same thing as not looking at them at all sometimes because we cant even point out exactly why the answer is wrong anyways since the text was so convoluted. Because of this, I rather skip a question outright and safe those precious seconds. If I consistently scored in the 178-180 range and finished sections in 25 minutes I would totally use your method because I want to make sure I get a perfect score. That level of mastery, I believe, is something we all strive for but it won't happen for all of us. In the meantime, I think it makes sense to employ strategies to maximize our score and help us finish sections in time while always striving to improve and get to a level where we don't even need to skip answer choices anymore. There will always be risk associated with skipping answer choices; but given the level of certainty we have on certain questions, and the fact that every second counts if we want to finish a section, saving time outweighs a small chance of getting the question wrong. Plus we can always come back if we have extra time and there will always be BR where the real learning/improvement happens. I believe this can be even true for people who score in the low to mid 70. This is just my 2 cents though.

Jonathan Wang

@Alejandro said:
In the meantime, I think it makes sense to employ strategies to maximize our score and help us finish sections in time while always striving to improve and get to a level where we don't even need to skip answer choices anymore. There will always be risk associated with skipping answer choices; but given the level of certainty we have on certain questions, and the fact that every second counts if we want to finish a section, saving time outweighs a small chance of getting the question wrong.

I think this is the operative point, and why I noted that the two stated approaches should probably actually be parallel paths, worked on in tandem. Everything ultimately arrives at the same place - a mix of top-down affirmative proof and process of elimination to get to the right answer efficiently - but the advice itself is so different due purely to the section being referenced. Thinking on it further, maybe it just has to do with the fact that people tend to be more unsure about LG than LR/RC most of the time (less comfort with abstract logic than with English words), and hence need to be 'primed' to be more careful in English-heavy sections and to not constantly second-guess themselves in the logic-heavy sections.

@"Cant Get Right" said:
We are taught in the curriculum to, in many situations, not try remaining answer choices once we have identified what we think is the correct answer in LG, and this is reinforced throughout the LG videos. I had been under the impression that, at least for LG, this was 7Sage orthodoxy.

You haven't misunderstood anything; that's how JY tells you to treat them. I'm just musing about whether it's the orthodoxy because it's actually theoretically the best way, or if there's something else to it - perhaps just a way to help people develop better habits, on the theory that it's easier to get someone to do something nuanced by getting them used to doing it period and then walking it back slightly instead of trying to get them to the exact right balance the first time around. The arguments against reading all of the LG choices and dealing with them are literally counterarguments for reading all the LR/RC choices unless there is some relevant and qualitative difference between the two thought processes (which I don't think there is), so it's becoming hard for me to justify the difference from a pure theory perspective.

Cant Get Right

I guess for me, the reason treating the sections differently hasn't necessarily seemed counter intuitive is because of the nature of the answer choices. In LR, the answer choices themselves are designed to mislead, but not so much on Games. While on all questions in every section, the four incorrect answers will of course be utterly and completely incorrect, there are many more ways, and much more sophisticated ways, that the test makers employ to disguise this in LR and RC. Wrong answer choices can often be made correct by changing a single word in LR answers. They don't really do this in Games where sometimes a correct answer choice can be a single letter. With an answer choice like that, there is just nothing the test makers can do within the answer choice itself to "trick" us. In comparison, LR is a minefield of trap answer choices. I think in LR, many of us are concerned with this, whereas in Games, we recognize that the answer choices themselves do not normally present us with any additional challenges.

That being said, I'm not necessarily disagreeing. I'm just saying this is why the advice is so often so different for the two sections. I actually agree that on a theoretical level, it's all the same. I'm working hard to get there, but man, I've got a long way to go!

Watching your 18 minute LR section, @"Jonathan Wang" , actually really transformed my understanding of what speed means on this test. I kind of had a bit of an epiphany, and you mention it in the comments above. Speed doesn't come from tricks or gimmicks or even moving really fast. Speed comes from mastery of the concepts, and I think this is the true heart of this debate. If we reach the level of understanding we should be striving for, the whole debate is moot. If we're struggling for time to the point that skipping even easily eliminated answer choices is essential to our ability to complete the section, then this isn't really the issue anyway. The issue is a deficit in our understanding of the logical concepts upon which all of this operates. If we truly master the material, which is what we're all here to do, this question doesn't really even come up. There is plenty of time to eliminate all the wrong answers.

hlsat180

The optimal methodology/approach ought to be independent of its individual mastery. For most of us mortals I do think the LG format has operative differences from LR/RC that situationally preclude checking every answer choice, every time:

1. Use of the diagram for some Qs already generates the correct answer (MBT/F, if-then inference) or narrows down potential answers (e.g., CBT focuses on either-or elements). In other words, the net effect of POE was via diagram instead of reviewing answer choices. And either your diagram outputs the "correct" answer or it doesn't - viewing the other "wrong" choices won't change that output.

2. Other questions and previous work can matter. Some otherwise time-consuming questions can be answered (or significantly narrowed down) from reviewing other questions or previous work done. This aspect can result in a significant advantage or, if a key inference being tested/revealed is missed, time-consuming disadvantage. Some evil games are deliberately setup this way to reward efficient testing - and to punish plodding through.

3. Along that line, LG has arguably the severest potential time delta. Everything could flow smoothly; or that one twisted rule or missing inference could prolong an entire game and possibly subsequent ones. Every second spent (or banked early) truly counts, and consequences of rapid time trade-off judgements are open-ended (you won't find out until time's up) and packaged in four abstract clusters.

We should still determine the optimal methodology to answering LG questions that work for most everyone. The salient dangers to eliminate being mindless habits developed early that become fatal under test conditions. Any clarity here would be useful to most everyone.

Btw, great discussion!

jimenezja.jj

"The issue is a deficit in our understanding of the logical concepts upon which all of this operates. If we truly master the material, which is what we're all here to do, this question doesn't really even come up. There is plenty of time to eliminate all the wrong answers." @"Cant Get Right" - I agree. I feel over time you will be able to move through the games quicker and if there is any necessary time go over the answer choice. Great discussion thank you all for your valuable input !!!

Jonathan Wang

I want to be clear - there's no denying that it's pragmatic and often even actively practical to not painstakingly check every answer in LG if you're not a straight-up robot. I'm not saying everyone should painstakingly disprove every wrong answer choice while under the gun - in fact, that's an actual bad idea. I'm taking issue moreso with the uncompromising position of pick-and-move and thinking about the impact is has on peoples' learning and mindsets.

For me, acknowledging that by employing pick-and-move you're cutting a corner should not be controversial, because you should be aware of the tradeoff you're making even if you go ahead and decide to make it anyway. I do think that framing the advice that way stops the conversation at the wrong place, sort of like how "part to whole" leaves out the whole "when the characteristic is not transitive in that manner" part. You can do a lot of damage by learning the buzzphrase and ignoring the context. Yes, you can skip it as a concession to your timing (key word: concession). But that doesn't mean that it's not problematic.

It is absolutely true that sometimes, your diagram will straight up show you the right answer and you don't need to be worried about seeing the wrong. But when your diagram ends up being that definitive, how hard is it really to disprove the others? I don't think I've ever seen a question where seeing the answer was super easy but disproving the others was super difficult. And what if it's not so clear cut? If the diagram isn't literally slapping you in the face, how can you be sure that you're not just missing something? How does it even occur to you that's something's wrong unless you glance through the others and realize "hey, wait a second, what about..."? Yeah, obviously the answer is 'do it right to begin with', but I don't think those things are mutually exclusive because you can do logic correctly and still just misinterpret or forget. You also can't ever complain about a 'stupid mistake' then because you've purposefully removed your safety net in the name of saving those few seconds. Again, calling it what it is should not be controversial. I've saved myself a lot of embarrassing tutoring moments over the years by having that "hey, wait a second" moment, something you completely deny yourself the opportunity to have if you just pick the first choice you like and move on.

It's also categorically untrue that there are games designed to force you to use prior information. Even just saying things like that shows the impact that incomplete advice can have on people. Questions are independent and have elegant, standalone solutions. From a test-taking perspective, using prior information can undoubtedly be a great time-saver; not questioning that. But from a theory perspective that's not how you should be tackling the question because that prior question won't always be there. By making the concession to your timing and marveling at how much more efficient you've become, you've denied yourself a valuable learning opportunity. This is not a problem if you go back and do it out from A to Z in your blind review...but how would you know to do that if you didn't think you had a problem with it in the first place? Again, back to the issue of short-term score maximization strategies versus getting actively better at the material, and how they have to be parallel processes at least.

rachel

@"Cant Get Right" Would love to see the 18 minute LR section by @"Jonathan Wang" you mention. Can one of you provide a link, please? Appreciate this discussion!

Cant Get Right

@rachel

https://youtu.be/F4vY0KpviJw

And the takeaways:

https://youtu.be/kwTN3_5SMNM

hlsat180

@"Jonathan Wang" I think everyone agrees about the irreplaceable value of seeking Mastery - which yields benefits in its never-ending journey - and appreciates your wary perspective as an experienced tutor warning against dangerous shortcuts. And regardless of where along that journey, the optimal methodology is a complementary common denominator (rather than some mutually exclusive shortcut) that helps us "focus on the right decisions at the right time" (to quote Mike Kim).

In this context, I feel it important to distinguish at least two different methodologies (training vs testing) and how to navigate their transition. The OP's question presents an opportunity to explain how BR is part of optimal training methodology to address fundamental issues (thereby gradually weaning off the need to check every single answer). And this in turn ultimately leads to optimal testing methodology in which checking more than one answer (e.g., POE beforehand; confirmation afterward to back-check diagram/rules setup; etc.) becomes a deliberately selective tool - part of Mastery is knowing when/what/why to check!

For the relative value of saving every second, I agree everyone in theory ought to have enough time to check every answer, but disagree that evryone in practice has sufficient time without opportunity costs. Certainly at one end of the spectrum a LSAT Jedi Master in tune with the Inference Force, with or sans diagrams, can consistently answer all questions correctly within 35min. But elsewhere along that spectrum where most of us LSAT padawans strive, seconds can add up, translating into a higher/lower score (e.g., sometimes previous work applies, sometimes it doesn't - but does the test methodology suggest when/what to check to rapidly find out?). We must understand, establish and relentlessly practice optimal methodologies as a baseline - from which deviations are deliberately tailored to individual situations.

Also want to reiterate my appreciation for your passionate perspective that (admittedly sometimes a bit over my head) often gleans valuable insights. And thanks everyone's shared input from this wonderful community.