lsat_hopeful wrote:This isn't directly related to the LSAT Trainer (I hope that's ok), but just wanted to get your input on something.
I was watching a 7sage video (logic games explanation video for PT55, Game 1: http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat ... -4-game-1/) and in it J.Y. suggests that for a global, could be true question, we should dive straight into the answer choices (it seems like he was suggesting to start by creating a hypothetical for each answer choice until we find the correct answer).
Just curious if you agree with this approach, or if you suggest a different method.
Thanks a bunch!
Hi there --
First off, let me say that I am a huge fan of J.Y., both as a person and as a teacher--he is a star--and in my opinion you should have all the confidence in the world in his advice -- listen to that man --
In terms of your specific question --
There isn't a whole lot of upfront work to be done w/a global CBT, and in general I'd suggest you just dive into the answers --
When you get to a point where you are very strong at games, the "default" experience for a global CBT should be that the inferences you've already made allow you to quickly and fairly easily see that four of the answers must be false, and you should be able to do so without having to write hypotheticals (or much of anything at all) out. Again (and I think this is a great marker of LG mastery) this should be your experience most of the time.
Having said that, obviously not all questions work the same way (otherwise the test would be too easy) and there will be instances where the answer that "could be true" will jump out at you and be easier to see/confirm than the 4 that must be false, and there will be instances where you should expect that you'll need to write things out/create hypos in order to test out answers. I think the question you linked to represents the latter of these situations. Notice that each of the answer choices is about the possibility of two things happening simultaneously -- this is tougher to see, mentally, then are inferences about just one element or one position. Evaluating the answers requires you to consider, again and again, whether two different things can be true together at the same time -- this doesn't necessarily make the question harder (the evaluation process for this question, for example, is fairly simple) but it does make it so you should expect that you'll more likely have to do things on paper, rather than just in your head.
Hope that helps, and let me know if you have any follow up or need anything else -- Mike