Cleaning up Logic Games

Comments

• 1 Like

  Trusttheprocess Member

  October 2019 776 karma

  Hey,

  I would say I think you should still be full proofing if you have not done so or completed it yet. When I was done full proofing i went to a -3. From there a strong control & focus on constraints, not both rules, restrictions = gets you to the -1/-2 in timed sections and your occassional -0 Lol.
  Also, mastery level of conditionality would also be needed.

  DM me for any specific help or questions.
• TexAgAaron Alum Member

  October 2019 1723 karma

  @Trusttheprocess Thanks for the reply! Yes, I have completed fool proofing! I use to suck horribly before that haha! I think its the subtleties that are killing me. I'm trying to trust my instinct and look for those more constraining AC's that kick the restraining rules.
• GSU Hopeful Core ⭐

  October 2019 1644 karma

  Fool proofing is definitely the way to go. You have every logic game at your disposal along with the awesome explanations here. Go through them ad nauseam...at least 4 times each. Some will take more than that... way more. You will be good on others at 4. Good luck.
• kyoungy_ Live Member

  October 2019 edited October 2019 73 karma

  I was where you were two months ago. Here’s what I did. Hope it helps!

  1. I'm getting frozen on straight up MBT and CBT questions; I'm always hesitant to make sub-game boards and it freezes me up.

  No additional condition MBTs: These questions are usually the second question of the game, and it’s often asking for the inference you (should have) made during the set-up, before you dived into the questions. So as JY always says, try to spend some time before hand. If you haven’t found the inference, then it’s a matter of intuition of which answer choice to brute force first—shallow dipping, sensing where the pressure points are, avoiding floaters etc. Having a loose game board visually also helps. (I’ll elaborate below.)

  No additional conditional CBTs: When these questions appear, first, go back to the previous questions to see if you already mapped out a CBT for other scenarios. If it’s on one of the answer choices, then you’re in luck. Otherwise, again, it’s a matter of intuition of what to brute force first. Also, the LSAC writers put these straight up CBT questions to sink your time. It’s important to understand that, and subsequently choose to skip or not skip.

  1. I'm getting burned in master game board setups with splits. I have seem to have run into a pattern of either splitting when its not necessary, or I am not splitting and missing out on a key inference that costs me time.

  I think this depends on what you feel most comfortable with, but in my case, I always feel much more secure if I have at least a set of ‘loose’ gameboards on the sheet, for every game. So this isn’t the full-on split gameboards inferenced-out-to-the-max, but just some very basic, obvious scenarios governed by the apparent rules.

  Even if there are many ‘if’ additional condition questions in the set, I still do these loose visual frameworks on paper before I go to the questions.

  If you’re doing -8 on games you’ll probably infer at least one inference when you do this ‘loose gameboards’. (It's usually one scenario that contradicts a rule, and hence there'll be a MBT question later on welcoming you with open arms.) The rest of the inferences will come when you are in the questions.

  This doesn’t take that much time to do it, and it visually guides me during the questions, so I’m also much less prone to error.

  But again, I think this is a personal ‘style’ that you have to develop yourself. If you can split the gameboards with full inferences not spending much time, then hey, there’s nothing better!

  Hope this helps. Good luck!