Logic games and hypotheticals Forum

[cp16]

I'm just wondering how often people find themselves making hypotheticals during logic games. I only ask because it feels like a sloppy way to solve games at times. When I'm making hypotheticals I feel like I'm not understanding the game as the test makers wanted me to (not making all the inferences and such). I just did the games section in PT47 which is supposedly pretty easy and ended up running out of time because I spent too much time making inferences. Inferences weren't jumping out at me like they seem to on other games. Going over the section again I was able to solve the games quicker by jumping straight to hypotheticals but I was still cutting it close on time. I'm just wondering how others use hypotheticals. Do you find it's better to jump straight to them if inferences aren't jumping out at you, or do you spend a minute or two trying to digest the game and make inferences? It seems like the "could be" questions are the ones most commonly requiring me to make hypotheticals. Do you find yourself making lots of hypotheticals on these types of questions. Any general advice or information on how you attack the games, your thought process during games and any time saving tips would be great. Thanks

[fosterp]

There weren't too many inferences to be made in most of those games except the one involving music and stores. The first one I just had to plug and chug, took me longer than it probably should have (10 min).

Second one the important rule was about the control panel. Whatever number of switches that were on, you had to have that # on. Ex - if 3 switches are on, then switch 3 must be on.

In the fourth the rulse I found doing the most work were the last two about S not working before P and K only working when its the other crew members first day.

[cp16]

Thanks for the response. I guess those games just felt a bit different for whatever reason. Sounds like you did them pretty similar to the way I did. Nice to know I'm on the right track.

[Eugenie Danglars]

They've changed up the games. I was feeling a lot like you (too much plugging), but I was finishing up in plenty of time. I read the answer explanations in a book I have, and they concur- in these games, it's more about speed than inferences.

[Jeffort]

They've changed up the games. I was feeling a lot like you (too much plugging), but I was finishing up in plenty of time. I read the answer explanations in a book I have, and they concur- in these games, it's more about speed than inferences.

Care to elaborate on this? They haven't 'changed up the games'. Sure, there are less odd ball one of a kind ones now than in the 90's and the types of games that appear have become much more consistent in terms of them being the same old types and variations.

Saying it's more about speed than inferences is entirely incorrect. What do you mean by this?
The LG section is all about deductive logic and making valid inferences/deductions from the rules and supplied information. If you are saying that the newer/current games are less about the set-up/deductions and more about powering through the questions with a brute force 'plug and chug' method, you are entirely wrong in a dangerous way as it relates to performance.

To the OP:
If you are having trouble on could be true questions and making several hypotheticals to test out answer choices, you are approaching them inefficiently. With a could be true question, by definition each of the 4 incorrect answer choices states something that must be false, meaning that it violates one or more of the given rules or available deductions.

With CBT questions you should first (before jumping into plugging and chugging away with hypos) go through the AC's and knock out the ones that violate a given rule(s) or deduction you formed while making your set-up. That will typically knock out 3 of the choices easily without having to write out a single hypo or do any trial and error work. Once down to 2, if upon closer inspection you cannot find a rule/deduction violation with either of them, then you proceed with trying to make hypos to flush out the correct AC.

Keep in mind with this that when faced with a local CBT question, meaning that the question stem gives you additional info (like S is 2nd or whatever), you start by making a little hypo, write in the condition specified in the stem, apply the rules to it to form whatever deductions are available and then head to the answer choices with process of elimination/knock out all the rule breakers in mind.

[jarofsoup]

I only do this if the game includes something in the rules like if A is last then B is first.

But I dont not spend to much time on Hypos...once I get the game I got the Qs

[cp16]

Thanks for the info. I am making the deductions and usually pick up on inferences pretty quickly. In reference to the particular games in PT47, I'm referring to inferences made by combining rules which result in a sort of "super inference" or "Key to the game" so to speak. The games in PT47 seemed to lack those. I'm able to solve the games, in fact they seem very simple relative to the earlier games, just a bit messy. The earlier games seemed better thought out perhaps. They were more complex but you would have a better appreciation for the game after you figured out how to solve it. Not sure if that makes any sense, just how I feel about them. I also should note that I've been working my way up from the earlier tests to the later ones. Just starting in the 50's now after going through the ten, next 10 and 10 more actual LSAT test books. I've heard that the tests change a bit as you progress so perhaps this is part of the reason I'm stumbling a bit.

[Eugenie Danglars]

They've changed up the games. I was feeling a lot like you (too much plugging), but I was finishing up in plenty of time. I read the answer explanations in a book I have, and they concur- in these games, it's more about speed than inferences.

Care to elaborate on this? They haven't 'changed up the games'. Sure, there are less odd ball one of a kind ones now than in the 90's and the types of games that appear have become much more consistent in terms of them being the same old types and variations.

Saying it's more about speed than inferences is entirely incorrect. What do you mean by this?
The LG section is all about deductive logic and making valid inferences/deductions from the rules and supplied information. If you are saying that the newer/current games are less about the set-up/deductions and more about powering through the questions with a brute force 'plug and chug' method, you are entirely wrong in a dangerous way as it relates to performance.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I'm talking about the games in the 40's. I haven't done the 50's yet, and I've heard they're harder. In the 40's there are fewer global earth-shattering inferences and situations with limited options. Instead, there are many, many more local questions that start with If and introduce a questions. These almost always require a hypothetical, and, while you might be able to knock out some answers based on inferences in your original diagram, you will almost certainly have to test more than one answer choice. Case in point: PT 41 is fully half local questions, compared with only 1/3 local questions in PT 30.

I guess my main point is, I'm spending less time looking for non-obvious/mechanical inferences and more time on hypotheticals. Maybe it's a personal preference thing. I've been getting -1 or -0 on these in the 40's with time left over (muuuch better than I was doing in the 30's).