Re-reading Game Rules

Comments

• Pacifico Alum Inactive ⭐

  July 2015 8021 karma

  That just seems like a crazy waste of time to me and you should not need that many read throughs. Are we talking just the rules or the situation as well? I would say two times at most for the rules: once to transcribe and a quick second round to verify proper transcription. It's usually pretty rare that you need to read the rules to figure out the game (I'd say on average once per PT at most, but probably closer to once every two PTs).
  
  Obviously you'll need to read them again for an acceptable situation question but that is still separate from your original setup methodology and those questions are not always there so it seems silly to put in a list like this.
  
  Mike Kim talks about reading everything first to get a feel for things and then going back to start diagramming. I tend to float somewhere in between the approaches of Mike and JY so my approach shifts based on the stimulus which I find helpful as I can speed up or slow down based on the scenario. While I like to have consistent methods, I also like to maintain flexibility so I can adjust my strategies as needed. Whatever you find works for you, I'd stick with that.
• 1 Like

  emli1000 Alum Member Inactive ⭐

  July 2015 edited July 2015 3462 karma

  Sounds like a time waste. Maybe when you are starting out but afterwards it's just a time sink because you should have a pretty good sense of what to expect on the LSAT. Since you have a min and some seconds per questions you do not want to spend so much time upfront on every single question because then you will not have enough time to answer every question per section.
• Dr. Yamata Member Inactive ⭐

  July 2015 578 karma

  On the test, I glazed thru the game, the rules, and then I even took a peek at the questions, before going in and transcribing the rules visually and making it happen. Take for example the television show lineup game on PT 65 game 4 where they give you the rules about the hour and half hour, then in the questions ask you the order. I think it helps to get an overall picture of what you're about to do, figure out how this game is most familiar to previous setups, then read the rules and transcribe, then go back and verify. What if you put O before P and it was supposed to be P before O? You'd be totally screwed.
• nicole.hopkins Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  July 2015 7965 karma

  @sarkisp23 said:
  but seriously what are your thoughts on rereading rules? Do you do it? Why or why not?
  

  Woof. Four times sounds like a lot.
  
  I can pretty much tell what "type" of game I'm dealing with right off the bat but in case I'm not sure, then I read the whole set-up. If it's just an ordering game, dude, you know what you're dealing with. Dive in. If it's a weird one or there is something weird going on with the rules (I suppose glance at them up front most of the time), then I might read the whole thing, then read again as I'm diagramming it, and then I do always double check each rule and put a mark by it when I've confirmed I've notated it exactly as I should have.
• 3 Likes

  Jonathan Wang Yearly Sage ⭐

  July 2015 6874 karma

  A lot of you guys are saying this is a waste of time, but I don't think it's all that different than what most people do anyway.
  
  The first read is obviously non-negotiable. You have to read the game to understand the situation.
  
  The read to check your diagram before you proceed into the questions is also fairly non-negotiable in my opinion. It's the easiest way to ensure that you haven't missed any rules and that you haven't mistakenly inverted an ordering rule or something silly like that.
  
  The 'read' for the purposes of the acceptability question is how most people tackle that question anyway. Pick a rule, apply it, eliminate choices, repeat. I wouldn't really even consider this a 'read', honestly.
  
  The only real discrepancy I see here is whether you mash together Graeme's #1 and #2 into a combined read-and-diagram step, or if you separate them out and read first, then diagram (keeping in mind that your diagramming will be helped out speed-wise by the fact that you've already read the rules once). And honestly, even if you separate them, I don't think that's more than 15 seconds or so of extra reading time. If saving 15 seconds per game will make or break your score, you've got bigger issues.
• nicole.hopkins Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  July 2015 7965 karma

  @"Jonathan Wang" said:
  but I don't think it's all that different than what most people do anyway.
  

  What I'm picturing with four read throughs is someone deliberately and somewhat painstakingly **reading through** the set-up/rules four times—not really accounting for when the diagramming happens. If the assumption is that diagramming is happening intertwined with those reads, then yeah, it's not very different from what I myself do.

  @"Jonathan Wang" said:
  If saving 15 seconds per game will make or break your score, you've got bigger issues.
  

  Word.
• 1 Like

  Pacifico Alum Inactive ⭐

  July 2015 8021 karma

  I mostly take issue with the absolutist nature of it. As Nicole said, if you are looking at a straight up run of the mill sequencing game that should take less than 5 minutes, then you should be good to go. I think the bigger deal is just being able to adjust to the needs of each game rather than applying something like this to every single one.
• 2 Likes

  GSU Hopeful Core ⭐

  July 2015 1644 karma

  I wouldn't go as far as to say that its a complete waste of time. I'm of the opinion with LG and RC that you either put your work in on the front end (passage and diagramming) or you put the work in on the back end with the questions. Personally, I would rather put my work in on the front end and work on the questions with a little less stress. With that being said, as @Pacifico pointed out, its a matter of relativity to the game. I don't think its a good use of time to go through the game and rules 4 times on a simple one layer sequencing game whereas doing the same would almost be required for me on a complicated grouping/sequencing game with a ton of rules. I always come back to concentrating on puttin a large majority of work in on the front end to make the questions somewhat easier.
• LoraxMan Alum Member

  July 2015 180 karma

  I dont believe in "absolutes" but personally I tend to read the rules ~2-3 times.
  
  First I read through and diagram rules as I read. Occasionally if I'm a little shaky or pressed for time this exposes me to the risk of skipping over a rule (ie eyes go up and down on the page). I think the best way to mitigate this is to use the "finger method" http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-1-game-1/
  
  Then if the game is "tough" or if I feel I need more time with the rules, I re-read the rules and double check with the rules I wrote out initially
  
  From here I go to inferences and my game setup
  
  Lastly, I move on to the questions and usually re-read from the text of the question for the acceptable question situation