Scratching out Rules in LG

Comments

• 6 Likes

  LSATcantwin Alum Member Sage ⭐

  February 2018 13286 karma

  I put check-marks next to them as I translate them onto my game board. This way I know I've already covered the rule but can still read it if I need it.

  Maybe try something a little more subtle and less destructive to your rules
• 1 Like

  teamteamvicster Alum Member

  February 2018 774 karma

  I check off each rule after I translate it or put it on my gameboard. Then, I take a few seconds to review/double-check my rules to make sure I didn't miss anything or make mistakes. I'm learning to put the work upfront and to TRUST my gameboards!
• 1 Like

  akistotle Member ⭐ 🍌🍌

  February 2018 9377 karma

  I put checkmarks next to rules. Also, I do the first acceptable situation question as I am reading the rules:

  https://imgur.com/bnzsXVs

  As you can see, I already eliminated (B) and (D) after reading the third rule.
• Mindful Monkey Member

  February 2018 136 karma

  Thank you everyone! It seems that a checkmark is popular for both the rules in the stimulus as well as the translations - which seems wise in comparison to my scratching out completely haha.
• 2 Likes

  Cant Get Right Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 🍌 7Sage Tutor

  February 2018 27860 karma

  I eliminate redundancies in my representation by scratching them off completely. I don't want any extraneous information lying around to distract me. So if I write out a rule in my rule list and later decide it’s better represented through a split, I’ll scratch the rule off my list once I’ve split the boards. That way, when I look at my rules I immediately know what’s live and what’s not.
• 1 Like

  Sami Live Member Sage ⭐ 7Sage Tutor

  February 2018 10789 karma

  @"Mindful Monkey" said:
  I'm curious if everyone else scratches out rules in LG after you have used up the rule creating your master game board. I think it is a good strategy EXCEPT when the occasional question arises that says to "keep all other rules," but eliminate one. At that moment, I look at the master game board and can't tell which game pieces are the result of inferences that may have been made from the rule I'm now required to abandon.

  Crossing off a rule that you have written and then put on the master game board or sub game board doesn’t mean you no longer think of that rule-it just means its represented in a different way and you are crossing off where the rule is being redundant.

  The idea is that the rule you are crossing off is better represented on board and the ones still written cannot be visually written in an effective manner so you still have to consider them and read if they kick start when a scenario is presented unlike seeing them neatly on the board. But if the rules that are written are a mix of being the ones that are already redundant on game boards and ones you actually need to consider it’s going to be harder to focus on the rules.

  This question about “keep all other rules” except if it happens usually happens at the end of the game. By this time I do have the rules memorized and I have found it doesn’t take that long to see things.

  The game is just a bit less restrictive but most of the same tensions between the variables are still there, so it should be quicker to see them.

  Ticking of a rule on the stimulus means you have represented the rule. Whether you chose to represent it on the game board vs write it down is a different call.

  Getting rid of that redundancy will help you get a higher return not only on this game but others as well.

  I also can't look at my simplified rule list that I condensed from the stimulus since most are sometimes scratched out. So I'm forced to translate all rules back to a condensed form again. Is the key to not scratch out? To only scratch out rules lightly? Or is there an alternative

  I mean either way you will have to think about how the other rules link without this rule. Use the knowledge you have gained so far from doing the game to link the rules without writing all of them down and see how this game changes without this game board.

  I usually just look at where I represented the rule. So if it’s on master game board, I now just take a look at the board and try to see without this rule what still works and what’s a world that is now open that wouldn’t have been before.
• 1 Like

  westcoastbestcoast Alum Member

  February 2018 3788 karma

  I usually cross out the numbers corresponding to my diagrams of each rule.
• Mindful Monkey Member

  February 2018 136 karma

  @"Cant Get Right" said:
  I eliminate redundancies in my representation by scratching them off completely. I don't want any extraneous information lying around to distract me. So if I write out a rule in my rule list and later decide it’s better represented through a split, I’ll scratch the rule off my list once I’ve split the boards. That way, when I look at my rules I immediately know what’s live and what’s not.

  You know what is immediately live, but what do you do when you are presented with a scenario similar to what I described - where the stem tells you to ignore only one rule and keep the others and tell, for instance, what must be true? Your split boards become basically untrustworthy unless you can determine exactly what influence the rule no longer in use played in the inference making process. Do you simply refer to the original rule list and translate in your head? If so, that second translation step is the one that I suppose could be prevented if complete elimination of original translations wasn't practiced.
• Mindful Monkey Member

  February 2018 136 karma

  @Sami said:

  I usually just look at where I represented the rule. So if it’s on master game board, I now just take a look at the board and try to see without this rule what still works and what’s a world that is now open that wouldn’t have been before.

  I suppose the instances that I'm really concerned with are those where I have translated rule number 1 down in conditional logic (rule 1 is arbitrary for this example), written several more numbered rules down and as a result am able to move rule 1 to the master gameboard followed by completely scratching it out - but if it is game where you are able to make many more inferences and splits, then you may be left with a gameboard that is pretty much full. Full of both rules and inferences. This generally makes it necessary for me to refer to the stimulus again because I have no clue which of the pieces on the gameboards are inferences or rules.

  I think you are right about just focusing on what I've learned throughout the other games - and hope the rules have "stuck" without much of a need to even translate the stimulus rules to a simplified form again.

  Thanks!
• 2 Likes

  Cant Get Right Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 🍌 7Sage Tutor

  February 2018 27860 karma

  That’s a good question. I know this doesn’t give me trouble, but it’s hard to say why not, lol. Is there a specific example you have in mind? Find me something to work through and I’ll see what happens and get back to you!
• 1 Like

  Alex Alum Member ⭐

  February 2018 23929 karma

  @"Mindful Monkey" said:
  I'm curious if everyone else scratches out rules in LG after you have used up the rule creating your master game board. I think it is a good strategy EXCEPT when the occasional question arises that says to "keep all other rules," but eliminate one. At that moment, I look at the master game board and can't tell which game pieces are the result of inferences that may have been made from the rule I'm now required to abandon.

  I also can't look at my simplified rule list that I condensed from the stimulus since most are sometimes scratched out. So I'm forced to translate all rules back to a condensed form again. Is the key to not scratch out? To only scratch out rules lightly? Or is there an alternative that I'm missing?

  I check them off, but don't scratch them off completely. Whether or not you scratch them off completely really shouldn't matter if you are listing them and representing them correctly when you write your rules list.
• 2 Likes

  Sami Live Member Sage ⭐ 7Sage Tutor

  February 2018 10789 karma

  @"Mindful Monkey" said:

  @Sami said:

  I usually just look at where I represented the rule. So if it’s on master game board, I now just take a look at the board and try to see without this rule what still works and what’s a world that is now open that wouldn’t have been before.

  I suppose the instances that I'm really concerned with are those where I have translated rule number 1 down in conditional logic (rule 1 is arbitrary for this example), written several more numbered rules down and as a result am able to move rule 1 to the master gameboard followed by completely scratching it out - but if it is game where you are able to make many more inferences and splits, then you may be left with a gameboard that is pretty much full. Full of both rules and inferences. This generally makes it necessary for me to refer to the stimulus again because I have no clue which of the pieces on the gameboards are inferences or rules.

  I think you are right about just focusing on what I've learned throughout the other games - and hope the rules have "stuck" without much of a need to even translate the stimulus rules to a simplified form again.

  Thanks!

  I think I agree with @"Cant Get Right" on this. Maybe I can walk you through how I would have thought about a particular questions depending on the game. It's hard to do that in concept because I have not struggled with it despite scratching out redundant rules I have written on the side.