Partially correct diagram

LSATaker

Hi,

When you do LG do you always have complete, perfect diagram like JY's?
I found I often have diagrams that are incomplete...very similar to JY's but did not have enough inference or did not divide into sub game boards etc.
Does this happen to you or am I just not mature enough on LG yet?

Thanks

Sprinkles

Although it doesn't have to be exactly like JYs, it should be very similar and allow you to get to the correct answer choice(s) in a timely manner. More info about this can be found here: https://7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/9249/what-if-you-have-different-game-boards-from-jy-s

But it does seem like you need to brush up on LG fundamentals, so I would work on that before burning more unseen LG problem sets.

Tinyosi1

As someone still mastering LG, there are MANY times my board does not reach JY's level. It is all a part of the learning process; JY is a vet at this and mastering the LSAT is literally part of his job.

JY's level of mastery is certainly a goal to aspire to, but don't be too hard on yourself for not being at his level just yet. Just take comfort in the fact that many, many LSAT takers have gone through the same process.

BinghamtonDave

Pushing out the inferences is an immensely important skill to have on LG. Sometimes, an entire game hinges on an inference and is really difficult to get through without that inference. For an illustration of this check out: PT 72 Game 4. Noticing the key inference on this game is key and really makes a difference.

With that being said I think there are two broad categories of inferences one should develop on the way to mastery of games: 1. running inferences that assist with setups. These include reading into rules that tell you where something cannot go with an understanding of where they can go. as a result of those restrictions etc. These are the normal sort of every day inferences, in a linear game: followers cannot go in slot 1 for example. Leaders cannot go in the last slot. 2.Inferences that require a close read and turn a unique game into something more manageable.

LSATaker

Thank you all!

@David3389 said:
2.Inferences that require a close read and turn a unique game into something more manageable.

Could you give me some examples about this? How can we do this?

speedwagon

I was for a long time very skeptical about all the layout that JY does in his boards - splitting, multiple boards, etc. I have timing issues with the LGs and it seemed like it was going to be a huge waste of time.

But I've been trying it - who am I to doubt our LG lord and savior - and I have to say it is really helping. It means I do more work up front but the questions end up much faster because I am not constantly having to re-think what the inferences might be. I think I have a lot to learn still with regards to figuring out when this is a good strategy and when it isn't, but usually I can tell pretty quickly and it's very, very helpful. Usually when there is a strong conditional, it is going to have a lot to do with the questions, and being able to start from an established foundation gives me such a head start - enough that I am now embracing this wholeheartedly.

BinghamtonDave

@LSATaker
72-Game 4 is one of the best examples. Try it if you haven't already before reading on.

*******SPOILER WARNING*******

The game largely hinges on the inference that only M can transfer to J. Once you have deduced that information, you are at an incredible advantage in my opinion. The game flows pretty well if you know that.

How did we do that? Well, there isn't much to draw from as far as previous games in this style. What we need to do in this case to find the inference is to read the rules and set up closely. This particular inference comes from coupling together two key pieces of information:the idea that the workpiece is passed from one employee to "another one of the employees." What this implicitly tells us is that a piece cannot be moved to the same employee.* And the rules that explicitly tell us that K can't pass to J and L can't pass to J. Meaning only M can pass to J.