Splitting in/out games with biconditionals

Comments

• BlindReviewer Alum Member

  March 2020 855 karma

  I hesitate to make generalizations because a huge part of LG is learning to think on your feet and not go into robot mode (and also because it's been almost a year since I studied for the LSAT), but I think I remember on my exam (July 2019) there was a mostly straightforward in/out game that benefitted a lot from creating multiple boards. In general, it makes sense to split the boards when you see biconditionals because it represents visually what is actually a pretty annoying symbol (a biconditional requires you to keep track of both directions, whereas two boards are two obviously different worlds). Splitting takes away the margin of error of misreading the biconditional.

  Sorry for the vagueness haha just trying to post a comment while I'm revisiting the forums due to the recent spam LOL There are logic games about a white/purple/yellow shirt and one about park rangers in the newer tests (probably 70s) that I remember drilling a lot. The best thing to do is keep a google doc or something with games that have biconditionals and examine their similarities and differences!
• EddieM Alum Member

  March 2020 279 karma

  Thanks very much! It makes sense that you wouldn't want to create a blanket rule like that, but good to hear that it's probably usually the right call.
• 1 Like

  taschasp Alum Member Sage ⭐

  March 2020 edited March 2020 796 karma

  would it be safe to say that in any in/out game with a biconditional that says two elements can never be together, it’ll be worthwhile to create multiple game boards?>

  Unfortunately, no. I can think of many in-and-out games with never-together biconditionals where splitting the game board would be a complete waste of time.

  If the issue is visual representation, you want to put a/b on one side of the board and b/a on the other side, and maybe draw a little line connecting them to remind yourself that they trade off. That way you know that ONE OF a/b has to be in, and THE OTHER of b/a has to be out. If both are ever in or out, the rule is violated; if one is in, the other is out; if one is out, the other is in.

  Drawing this into two boards might be useful only if the rule triggers something else. For example, if A being in also forces Q to be out, which then restricts the number of items that can be out. If you have something like that, then yeah, you might save time by splitting the board.

  It's also worth mentioning that splitting the game board is a useful strategy in more older LGs than in newer ones.
• 1 Like

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

  March 2020 27821 karma

  For situations like this, I think it would be safe to say that you want a representation other than a rule in your rule list. I hesitate to say make that a hard rule, but I can't think of any game with a bi-conditional rule where I find that the best representation is on the rule list. So this is about as absolute a procedural rule as there is, but always keep an open mind on new games!

  Whether it's best to go with a split or a switch directly on the game board depends on how the representation interacts with other components:

  If the switch doesn't affect other game pieces or functionally trigger any other rules, then directly on the game board with a switch is the way to go.

  If the switch impacts the placement of other game pieces or is consequential to the other rules, then you should split.
• EddieM Alum Member

  March 2020 edited March 2020 279 karma

  Thank you! I definitely think I don’t take advantage of the “switch” tool enough, so that’s great to have as an alternative to actual board splits. I suppose that’s not all that different from the calculus involved in writing an “always together” biconditional in the game board as a block and then not splitting further.

  Also, @taschasp I was surprised to see you say that new LGs less frequently invite multiple game boards than old LGs. Is that the consensus? If so, what range of tests would you count as “new”?

  (Also I got premium sometime since the initial post so that’s why I wrote that I only have a free account haha)
• lexxx745 Alum Member Sage ⭐

  March 2020 3190 karma

  I pretty much always try to split... I find that during timed conditions making that choice of whether or not to split takes too much time and can often backfire. So i just err on safety and split
• EddieM Alum Member

  March 2020 edited March 2020 279 karma

  @lexxx745 interesting! If you don't mind my asking, are you a -0/1 LGer yet? (I'm definitely not.) Just wondering if that strategy is compatible with gettin' 'em all right.
• lexxx745 Alum Member Sage ⭐

  March 2020 3190 karma

  depends. usually at most ill go -2 if the games are somewhat hard. Like i went -2 today on PT 77. But generally its always -1 or -0. Like I cant say I remember the last time getting -2 on a fresh PT besides today.
• EddieM Alum Member

  March 2020 279 karma

  Good enough for me haha. Cool to know that can work!