ATLAS LG Forum

[Shammis]

Ive been experimenting with Atlas' LG approach to grouping games...Anyone have any experience with it? I dunno, to me it seems way more complicated then it needs to be. How long did it take for you to implement their strategy effectively? I seem to make stupid mistakes more often than with the PS way.

[paulshortys10]

I literally just started implementing the logic chain method cause it seems so much more effective....did a grouping in under 7 with all correct

[cw2010]

The chain method didn't work for me. It just seemed too bulky and prone to detail errors. I use the PS approach for games with lots of conditionals. Either way, I think both methods can be very efficient with practice, and I'm sure the chain method can be used with great results.

[Manhattan LSAT Noah]

Nobody uses our new name Manhattan LSAT!

Anyway, the chain does take some time to master, but we find it to help speed up those games. Like every diagram system, there are pros and cons to it, and some people may need a simpler method. But, we're fond of it!

The game "Could It Be" on the LSAT Arcade can help you speed up your use of the chain

Good luck!

[robotclubmember]

I just bought the Atlas LSAT guide yesterday. I was impressed with it's approach to in/out questions specifically. All other types of grouping questions could be handled equally well with PS LG Bible, even without the logic chain. The PS LG Bible really suffers in terms of explaining undefined/unbalanced grouping problems though (wrens and shrikes is their only example and that's a perfect problem for the logic chain).

One thing that is suspiciously missing from the Atlas LSAT book in the logic chain method though, is how do you notate something like:

"If G and H are both selected, then J is selected."

So you have to come up with your own notation in the rare instance you might encounter that.

Overall I think PS LG Bible has a better method... I think it's much less intuitive to set up contrapositives with minus signs instead of strikethroughs, for example, and I think PS does a better job explaining hypotheticals than Atlas does (Atlas calls them frames I believe). But if you ran into a mauve dinosaur question, you would be able to complete it a couple minutes faster probably using the logic chain in Atlas' book as opposed to anything in PS LG Bible.

[robotclubmember]

Nobody uses our new name Manhattan LSAT!

Anyway, the chain does take some time to master, but we find it to help speed up those games. Like every diagram system, there are pros and cons to it, and some people may need a simpler method. But, we're fond of it!

The game "Could It Be" on the LSAT Arcade can help you speed up your use of the chain

Good luck!

Refer to my response above, but I was curious, as far as the logic chain setups go... How would you run that for the second game on PT #31? New and used CD sale. There are a lot of "If both types of this, then that" kind of conditionals, and those types of conditionals weren't addressed in the book. Just wondering how you would draw that? Thanks!

[AverageTutoring]

I've never read the Manhatton LG book but I'm definately sure they have a way to diagram: "If G and H are both selected, then J is selected." As far as I am aware they use the elastic band approach, which would translate the above rule into,

---G
-----\
and---J
-----/
---H

(ignore the "--" symbols, it's just for formatting since the TLS boards wont let me have my slashes a few spaces over)

Or, if this game is grouping we can write it as,

[GH] --> [GHJ]

Even without seeing the Atlas LG guide i'm sure that they cover the above, it's a fairly standard approach. I personally think that the LG bible is great, but is too quick to dismiss certain techniques such as the chart or elastic band approach.

I just bought the Atlas LSAT guide yesterday. I was impressed with it's approach to in/out questions specifically. All other types of grouping questions could be handled equally well with PS LG Bible, even without the logic chain. The PS LG Bible really suffers in terms of explaining undefined/unbalanced grouping problems though (wrens and shrikes is their only example and that's a perfect problem for the logic chain).

One thing that is suspiciously missing from the Atlas LSAT book in the logic chain method though, is how do you notate something like:

"If G and H are both selected, then J is selected."

So you have to come up with your own notation in the rare instance you might encounter that.

Overall I think PS LG Bible has a better method... I think it's much less intuitive to set up contrapositives with minus signs instead of strikethroughs, for example, and I think PS does a better job explaining hypotheticals than Atlas does (Atlas calls them frames I believe). But if you ran into a mauve dinosaur question, you would be able to complete it a couple minutes faster probably using the logic chain in Atlas' book as opposed to anything in PS LG Bible.

[robotclubmember]

I've never read the Manhatton LG book but I'm definately sure they have a way to diagram: "If G and H are both selected, then J is selected." As far as I am aware they use the elastic band approach, which would translate the above rule into,

---G
-----\
and---J
-----/
---H

(ignore the "--" symbols, it's just for formatting since the TLS boards wont let me have my slashes a few spaces over)

Or, if this game is grouping we can write it as,

[GH] --> [GHJ]

Even without seeing the Atlas LG guide i'm sure that they cover the above, it's a fairly standard approach. I personally think that the LG bible is great, but is too quick to dismiss certain techniques such as the chart or elastic band approach.

I just bought the Atlas LSAT guide yesterday. I was impressed with it's approach to in/out questions specifically. All other types of grouping questions could be handled equally well with PS LG Bible, even without the logic chain. The PS LG Bible really suffers in terms of explaining undefined/unbalanced grouping problems though (wrens and shrikes is their only example and that's a perfect problem for the logic chain).

One thing that is suspiciously missing from the Atlas LSAT book in the logic chain method though, is how do you notate something like:

"If G and H are both selected, then J is selected."

So you have to come up with your own notation in the rare instance you might encounter that.

Overall I think PS LG Bible has a better method... I think it's much less intuitive to set up contrapositives with minus signs instead of strikethroughs, for example, and I think PS does a better job explaining hypotheticals than Atlas does (Atlas calls them frames I believe). But if you ran into a mauve dinosaur question, you would be able to complete it a couple minutes faster probably using the logic chain in Atlas' book as opposed to anything in PS LG Bible.

I'm talking about within logic chains. Thank you for your advice on a book you've never touched.

[robotclubmember]

Nobody uses our new name Manhattan LSAT!

Anyway, the chain does take some time to master, but we find it to help speed up those games. Like every diagram system, there are pros and cons to it, and some people may need a simpler method. But, we're fond of it!

The game "Could It Be" on the LSAT Arcade can help you speed up your use of the chain

Good luck!

Refer to my response above, but I was curious, as far as the logic chain setups go... How would you run that for the second game on PT #31? New and used CD sale. There are a lot of "If both types of this, then that" kind of conditionals, and those types of conditionals weren't addressed in the book. Just wondering how you would draw that? Thanks!

To add, this is how I diagrammed this problem using the logic chain. But it was so convoluted that it took longer to do the problem this way (13 minutes) than it took me to do it using no chain at all (10 minutes using only diagrams but no logic chain).

I want to know if you have advice on a better way to do this. Again it's the 2nd problem from PT #31. It will get you to all the right answers but it's such a mess.



BTW, I will take this opportunity to say I'm not knocking Atlas' approach. It's actually great. Look at how much info you get. For example, UJ and NJ out means NP in means US and NS in means UR and NR out. You can get a lot of inferences very fast. PS LG Bible doesn't show you this at all. Both books together are a powerful tool. But I still think you need an approach that can be used all of the time, and until someone points out a better way to do it, I'm inclined to drop logic chains because for a problem like this the set-up time isn't worth it (though it is worth it for 75% of unbalanced undefined grouping problems).

[Manhattan LSAT Noah]

Yeah, the teachers at Manhattan LSAT (RIP "Atlas" ) have thought a lot about that game.

Here's an explanation of how to solve it with the chain: http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/jun ... 457e37d0fe

As I mentioned, every diagram has pros and cons, and with the chain, it's important to be able to consider how to keep it neat, when to write rules to the side, etc.

In general, I'd say that those diagram systems of ours that are significantly different than the standard flock may require a bit more thought to master, but pay off big for the flexible test-taker.

Of course, no matter how cool we think our diagrams are, in the end it's the brain does the solving! Good luck.

[barnum]

Connecting the rules into a chain is I think a great way to do it, but I think writing that chain in a more linear fashion is probably easier to see.

Here is how Griffon Prep explains the infamous bird game, and you will see that it is really easy to make the chain and answer all the questions pretty quickly.

http://www.griffonprep.com/Birdgamesolution.html

[AverageTutoring]

You're welcome

Kidding aside I thought logic chains referred to linking multiple conditional statements, which is why I interjected with the above. My bad, no idea that Atlas created a new way of diagramming...I cant even follow the above. It reminds me of Balloon Calculus.

I've never read the Manhatton LG book but I'm definately sure they have a way to diagram: "If G and H are both selected, then J is selected." As far as I am aware they use the elastic band approach, which would translate the above rule into,

---G
-----\
and---J
-----/
---H

(ignore the "--" symbols, it's just for formatting since the TLS boards wont let me have my slashes a few spaces over)

Or, if this game is grouping we can write it as,

[GH] --> [GHJ]

Even without seeing the Atlas LG guide i'm sure that they cover the above, it's a fairly standard approach. I personally think that the LG bible is great, but is too quick to dismiss certain techniques such as the chart or elastic band approach.

I just bought the Atlas LSAT guide yesterday. I was impressed with it's approach to in/out questions specifically. All other types of grouping questions could be handled equally well with PS LG Bible, even without the logic chain. The PS LG Bible really suffers in terms of explaining undefined/unbalanced grouping problems though (wrens and shrikes is their only example and that's a perfect problem for the logic chain).

One thing that is suspiciously missing from the Atlas LSAT book in the logic chain method though, is how do you notate something like:

"If G and H are both selected, then J is selected."

So you have to come up with your own notation in the rare instance you might encounter that.

Overall I think PS LG Bible has a better method... I think it's much less intuitive to set up contrapositives with minus signs instead of strikethroughs, for example, and I think PS does a better job explaining hypotheticals than Atlas does (Atlas calls them frames I believe). But if you ran into a mauve dinosaur question, you would be able to complete it a couple minutes faster probably using the logic chain in Atlas' book as opposed to anything in PS LG Bible.

I'm talking about within logic chains. Thank you for your advice on a book you've never touched.

[robotclubmember]

I will add this comment.

To anyone interested in Atlas LSAT (or Manhattan, whatever), think about it long and hard if you have already gone through PS LG Bible. It is to be expected that when trying new methods, your scores may go down temporarily. But if you're already using PS LG Bible and doing reasonably well (at least -3 or less each time), don't bother going to Atlas. I did. I just took a LG section trying to implement the Atlas methods and got a -7. The first time in the last 20 LG sections that I took where I got anything less than a -3. It's not worth trying to implement new methods if you're already doing reasonably well at something. I'm done with the book lol.

[letsgetitstarted]

.

[Sandro]

I like Atlas for ordering games and their tree to show possibilities on 3d games. Grouping stat probably isnt for everyone. But to touch off of what previous poster said, its not like the LG bible has a super awesome strategy for grouping games either. Much of their approach is just "get the inferences", a kind of figure it out as you go approach that is great... if you can figure it out as you go. Miss something and you're screwed.

[evilxs]

atlas has some methods that the bible series books just cant touch.

After getting caught out on an in out game on a real lsat exam I retook after buying atlas's book.

Im finishing my first semester of law school right now, thanks atlas for a far superior method.

[youknowryan]

Is the CD game set up indicative of the Manhattan in/out method? Does is use most or all of the tricks in their arsenal for that type of game?