Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

Internalizing LG Rules More Quickly

partyondudespartyondudes Alum Member
in Logic Games 424 karma

When taking a timed Logic Game, it's so easy to just write out the rules, look for quick inferences, and dive into the questions with what, at the time, seems like a good understanding of the rules and how they relate to each other. Unfortunately, it often turns out that I forget about a rule or don't catch some key inferences that were deeper than simply chaining rules together (e.g., seeing the deeper J->(F and R) inference in PT23/Section 1/Game 3). Although it's nice to, due to familiarity, remember more rules and see more inferences when re-doing the game in Blind Review, I'd much rather be able to remember and see them the first time.

What best practices do you use to internalize the rules during game board setup to help you remember them?
What best practices do you use for gaining a deeper understanding of the relationships between rules during game board setup?

Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • BinghamtonDaveBinghamtonDave Alum Member ⭐ 🍌🍌
    8716 karma

    Are you referring to the rule that if J is on team 1 then R is on team 2? The 4th rule? The inference you have listed is indeed something in which a synthesis of the rules yields that inference. 5.5 lines down in the stimulus we are given the condition that each team "must include at least one A and at least one L." The third rule listed is If M---->R Pushing those 3 rules together and we have the inference you listed.

    If J is on team 1 and R is on team 2
    + R and M cannot be together
    + Team 2 must include at least 1 A and we have one remaining A (which is Franklin)

    We are left with J on team 1 yields the combo of R and F on team 2.

    What has worked for me in gaining an understanding of how these rules work together is nothing but good old fashion practice. I look at the rules as certain obligations we must fulfill or avoid on every valid construct we draw out. A way I have found of internalizing these rules is to run through them each time I construct a world to ensure validity. I look at each and every rule as something a world must "pass" in order to approach validity. The average game has what, 6 questions? That means we are reviewing/internalizing the rules upwards of 5 times with our initial read.

    I hope this helps.
    David

  • partyondudespartyondudes Alum Member
    424 karma

    Thanks @BinghamtonDave! Yes, as an example of a "deeper inference", I was referring to the inference you've proved out. It's an inference that becomes readily apparent when you think things through, but having the presence of mind during the timed run through to think beyond simply chaining rules together is what I'm lacking and trying to work on. Thanks for your tip about constantly reviewing the rules! I'll give that a try. That, and I'll spend just a few more seconds trying to quickly visualize how the rules play out before diving into the questions. :)

  • TheoryandPracticeTheoryandPractice Alum Member
    1008 karma

    @BinghamtonDave Ah so beautifully put !

  • AlexAlex Alum Member ⭐
    23929 karma

    @TheoryandPractice said:
    @BinghamtonDave Ah so beautifully put !

    agreed. Dave is the LG master :)

  • BinghamtonDaveBinghamtonDave Alum Member ⭐ 🍌🍌
    8716 karma

    Thank you both for the kind words!

Sign In or Register to comment.