Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.2K All Categories
- 27.1K LSAT
- 16.5K General
- 5.1K Logical Reasoning
- 1.3K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 72 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 9 Scholarships
- 193 Test Center Reviews
- 2K Study Groups
- 108 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.4K Specific LSAT Dates
- 7 June 2024 LSAT
- 1 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 41 October 2023 LSAT
- 12 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 1 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.8K Not LSAT
- 3.9K Law School Admissions
- 11 Law School Explained
- 9 Forum Rules
- 580 Technical Problems
- 275 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Diagramming Pure Sequencing Games
sakox010
Member
Pure sequencing is one of my weaker areas and I'm starting to wonder if it might be easier and save more time for me to translate each rule individually and then make a master diagram. I feel like this may be easier for me to make inferences and it also allows me to avoid having to erase certain sequences when you find out that the next rule changes things, ultimately saving me time in the long run.
I'm curious to know how you guys all approach diagramming pure sequencing games!
Diagramming Pure Sequencing Games
- Do you go straight to making a master diagram or translate each rule individually first?25 votes
- Straight to master diagram40.00%
- Translate each rule, then make a master diagram60.00%
Comments
Pure Sequencing games typically just give you a bunch of rules saying who/what can and can't go ahead or behind someone/something else.
I think the best approach to this would be do write down each rule individually, but into 1 long chain if possible. Skip around in rules if needed to make this chain, but make sure you keep track of rules you haven't looked at. What I mean by this is, for example:
rule 1: A goes sometime before B
rule 2: Z goes sometime after J
rule 3: B goes sometime before J
above is just 3 simple sequencing rules you could see in a PS game. You want to link up rule 1 and 3 first and then go to rule 2. you want to do this because 'B' can be linked to a chain with A and J, while rule 2 would be left to the side of your master chain if you wrote it down beforehand. So with the rules above, it would all look something like this: A--B--J--Z
I feel like this way of doing it is not only faster but more efficient. Drill a bunch of pure sequencing games, they are important and are the basics for knowing how to do a lot of other types of games.
best of luck!
I am drilling pure sequencing right now!
I'm not voting because it's not clear whether you have attempted the approach TheMikey points out. What he lays out is pretty key to speed in these games because these need to be 5 min or less generally and screwing up the master gb will cost you precious time on what should be a slam dunk game.
When I reach a rule that can't be chained up (yet) i jot it down next to the rule itself and move on. then i return once I've incorporated the necessary rules to include it in my chain.
I don't recommend translating each rule individually because that will make it nearly impossible to complete these games quickly and they need to be done quickly. The trick improving on hard games is mastering simple games because it gives you all kinds of time and confidence to approach the hard games.
Just keep drilling these suckers.
@sakox010 Pure sequencing games should really be the easiest type of game to master. I used to have trouble with those too using Powerscore's shitty tree method. Watch some 7Sage videos and see how JY diagrams them. You'll be able to get them down in no time.
When I first started Logic Games I had a lot of problems. Then I found something similar that I could relate to, and now they are all the exact same. Playing Suduko and the series Puzzle Barrons Logic Puzzles (I got a copy on Amazon for like $10 got me from -10 down to -0 to -2 avg. I usually finish the LG game section with 10 minutes to spare. Those two types of game structures are all the Logic Games I've encountered on the LSAT. The relationships and pattering and inferences are really all that LG games are, and those two types of games are exactly it. Puzzle Barrons is good, because you can track your time. I think they also have an online version, but I just did the old fashioned version. If only LR and RC were as good for me.
But, for your actual question, I create a master diagram right along as I read the rules. Once you've done enough, you'll see that they are all the same patterns. Good luck.
I think I should have phrased my original post better - logic games are definitely my strong suit and I almost always go -0 on logic games, did so when I sat for the June 2017 with 8 minutes to spare although I felt that section was incredibly easy. I'm just trying to get as fast as possible at these so I can have as much time saved up in the event that there's some weird or really hard game later on. For some context, I'm PTing in the low 170s but want to get that to the upper 170s to ensure that I get above 170 on the real test. Got 167 on the June 2017 largely due to reading comprehension which I'm drilling really hard but I absolutely want to avoid losing a point or two in logic games on the real test due to not having enough time for a difficult game.
I always finish pure sequencing games under J.Y.'s recommended time, but sometimes I notice in his videos that he will start making a master diagram right away but then erase (in the videos he will make a box around the area and clear it but doing this on paper isn't as easy) a part as he goes through the other rules because a subsequent rule eliminates the possibility that a game piece is before or after another piece.
In terms of translating each rule individually, I think you guys are kind of exaggerating how much time it takes. For me, it's only an extra 15-20 seconds to write A - B etc. for each rule and the reason I think it's worth it is because it might help with making a cleaner master diagram and avoid missing some inferences or misreading it because it's messy due to erasing.
If you're aim is speed, why would you duplicate work? an extra 15 seconds per rule on a 5 rule sequencing game is an extra 1:15. If you watch the live commentary videos (especially Leah) you'll notice there is almost never any erasures as JY does in his instructional videos. That's because JY is teaching the fundamentals at the expense of higher level tactics like taking the rules out of order.
You're clearly very strong in LG. Why not just test your theory and share back in this thread?
Here's an example - PT 33 December 2000 Game 1
The rules are
J and L are each less popular than H
J is more popular than Q
S and V are each less popular than L
P and S are each less popular than Q
S is not seventh
I tried doing just a master diagram. Things are going well until I get to "S and V are each less popular than L". This is what my diagram looks like: https://i.imgur.com/ArtXZGL.jpg
Here's when the problem comes. I get the rule "P and S are each less popular than Q". I pretty much had to redo my whole diagram so that it shows that S is after L and after Q.
Watch J.Y.'s explanation: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-4-game-1/
at 1:12 he says, "Now I'm going to put S all the way over here. This is only because I know that the next rule links S and Q and S is going to be less popular than Q."
If you are diagramming this for the first time and you go straight to a master diagram, you most likely will either end up having to re-do you master diagram or you have to actively be scanning and keeping track of the subsequent rules. Scanning and keeping track of later rules isn't an easy task for me especially because the rules are written in plain english, not symbols. This is why I feel that it might be better to approach pure sequencing games by diagramming each rule individually then making a master game board. I feel like this approach would make inferences as well that aren't explicitly stated in the rules. If you realize an inference after you've made most of you master diagram, sometimes you will end up having to make a new one.
This specific game is obviously not that bad but I definitely lost more time on this one with having to rediagram and just to overall pausing to realize what was going on than I would have if I had just spent a several more seconds diagramming each rule and then building a master game board. I can't recall specific ones off the top of my head, but I know in the past there have been pure sequencing games where it's cost me a lot more time. I finished this game with all questions correct and my time was 4:36 but I feel like I could have done it closer to 4 minutes if I had just translated each rule up front and then made my master game board.
I hope this makes things more clear. This is obviously a pretty specific scenario but I'm just dreading getting a really tough game on the real thing and want to make sure that the easier games go more smoothly. I'd be interested to hear other people's thoughts on this!
Edit:
@jkatz1488, I actually noticed you commented on this game explanation.
"PrepTest 33 – Section 4 – Game 1
5:21 game board
3:36 questions
8:57 total
-0
I had a difficult time diagramming due to the odd rule “S comes after Q and L”. I eventually got it but that definitely slowed me down. My sub game boards weren’t drawn so quickly either. I’ve seen this game before in the past so clearly I have some work to do on the sequencing language."
Do you think it would have made it easier for you to diagram if you had translated each individual rule up front?
I was actually just doing this game because it's part of the problem sets in the CC. I see what you're saying with regards to the odd rule. I don't think diagramming each individual rule upfront would have saved anytime. What I often do is quickly scan the rules ahead and see if that gives me any indication of how I should link everything up. Sometimes, like games like this, there's not really a whole lot you can do. That rule is designed to throw people a bit off. You just have to erase/cross out and make sure it's diagrammed in a way that expresses the rule correctly.
If you can do it in under the recommend time, I am sure you will be fine if you encounter a similar game.
in a situation like that, just make the line from L to S a bit longer and link S to Q to represent that rule. then obv just put the P linked with Q.
you may have to scratch off what you already diagrammed, or just erase and adjust it.
@sakox010 LOL I remember that! I think that was during the CC and before my fool-proofing? During my sequencing drills today I encountered this game again. It went much better. The tricky aspect of this game is that the suggestion we've all made here to "skip rules to keep the chain flowing" doesn't help if this game is fresh since "S and V less than L" seems to link up fine. It's not until we get the rule about Q that we realize the complication. This is a perfect game to speak about the issue you've raised.
I still don't recommend drawing out the sequencing rules individually and here is why. We categorize games and devise generic approaches that will give us the greatest overall likelihood of success. It's like card counting in that way; we might lose a hand here or there, but over the course of the night, we beat the House. However, unlike card counting, by practicing so many games in so many combinations of types, rules, and questions, we prepare ourselves to adapt when needed. Thereby further improving our chances of success.
In my estimation, it is the latter skill (adaption) that we should augment to prepare for this game, NOT the former (general approach for sequencing games) precisely because this rule is so strange. If I were to incorporate an individual sequencing translation for each rule on every logic game, it likely hampers me on 9 games out of 10. Rather, we should practice our composure so that we have the peace of mind to do as TheMikey said above
PT 65 Game 1 is a good example of what I was trying to get at - notice how in the explanation J.Y. writes down each rule and then goes on to make a master diagram separate from the rules. For me at least that feels like the more fluid and efficient way to go rather than scanning the rules and thinking in your head how you can connect all 3 rules to make one master diagram right from the get go without writing the rules down.
@jkatz1488
@"Alex Divine"
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-65-section-2-game-1/
haven't done this game. if it works for you, let it ride!
Found another game where diagramming strategy comes into play.
PT 29 Game 4
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-3-game-4/
What I was originally trying to get at in this thread was that I felt it might be easier to just diagram all the rules. Trying to connect rules 3 and 4 in this game without diagramming them feels trickier and more time consuming to me compared to having all 4 rules visually represented and then piecing them together for a master sequencing chain diagram.