## Sequencing Games--Tree vs. Powerscore method

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
Helicio

Posts: 482
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 5:22 pm

### Sequencing Games--Tree vs. Powerscore method

Is it me or does the Powerscore method suck for sequencing? I've found that Manhattan/Kaplan's tree method is much better. I'm just wondering if you guys think one is better than the other; if you think the tree is better, does it generally work out for every sequencing game. I've just discovered the tree and so far I've used it on 6 games to great effect (-0 on all 6), but I am not sure if I can generalize how successful this method is yet.

Thanks guys!

-Helicio

pizzabrosauce

Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:06 pm

### Re: Sequencing Games--Tree vs. Powerscore method

tree fasho

LSAT Blog

Posts: 1257
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:24 pm

### Re: Sequencing Games--Tree vs. Powerscore method

Tree. Can't recall seeing a sequencing game where it didn't work.

gaud

Posts: 5765
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:58 am

### Re: Sequencing Games--Tree vs. Powerscore method

LSAT Blog wrote:Tree. Can't recall seeing a sequencing game where it didn't work.

+1

vdog

Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:29 pm

### Re: Sequencing Games--Tree vs. Powerscore method

Use a combination of both. Have one section to the left where you list the numbers and write all the fixed variables (A is first), not applicable variables (B is not last), and "locked" if rules (if A is third, then...). Have a side section to the right to tree-diagram your sequencing rules. The second one allows you to combine rules and move the variables more quickly, while the first allows you to see the frame that you have to work around.

For me, I use this to construct my tree:
A--B: A is some distance before B
AB (curved double arrow arc): A is immediately before or after B
A_B: A is one space before B (A_ _B is the equivalent except two spaces)
You can do double arrows if A and B are only separated, not ordered.

And just build one rule on top of another on the side.

I also create a "random variable" box on the side.

lovejopd

Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 1:00 pm

### Re: Sequencing Games--Tree vs. Powerscore method

Helicio wrote:Is it me or does the Powerscore method suck for sequencing? I've found that Manhattan/Kaplan's tree method is much better. I'm just wondering if you guys think one is better than the other; if you think the tree is better, does it generally work out for every sequencing game. I've just discovered the tree and so far I've used it on 6 games to great effect (-0 on all 6), but I am not sure if I can generalize how successful this method is yet.

Thanks guys!

-Helicio

Some really complicated sequencing games sometimes need a normal ordering set-ups such as adding a new condition that messes up the original condition...

but generally tree approach trumps other methods.

Helicio

Posts: 482
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 5:22 pm

### Re: Sequencing Games--Tree vs. Powerscore method

Great, thanks guys. Powerscore's method required a lot of thought when diagramming and I wasn't sure if I could afford the time during the time pressure of the test.

Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 7:34 pm

### Re: Sequencing Games--Tree vs. Powerscore method

Can anyone give me a quick rundown of this tree method? I've only read LGB, but if there is something better then I'd love to hear it!

MLBrandow

Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:12 pm

### Re: Sequencing Games--Tree vs. Powerscore method

broadstreet11 wrote:Can anyone give me a quick rundown of this tree method? I've only read LGB, but if there is something better then I'd love to hear it!

Here is a link to MLSAT's free guide covering the tree method for sequencing games.

For what it's worth, at least for pure sequencing games, these are generally the easiest, most straightforward games there are, and the tree method crushes all of them. I learned and mastered Powerscore's method, but that predates this tree method, which is simply a better means to conquer this game type.

There isn't a pure sequencing game that can't be done in less than 4 minutes using this method efficiently.

For games with a linear component (A is 3, for example), the tree can still be extremely useful if you have rules that encourage its usage. But for any games where you can make a relatively large tree (encompassing most of the variables), I find it still has a large impact on cutting game time.

There isn't a sequencing game (pure or hybrid) I can think of where, when the possibility of using the tree method in some capacity is offered, that the tree method wasn't always either the optimal strategy or part of the optimal strategy.

It takes less time, is more intuitive, is easier to setup, and is easier to manipulate with your brain, allowing you to see more but write less.

The only caution I offer when using this strategy is to make certain that the lines you draw do not resemble A_B (A two spots before B). For me, a sloppy writer, I had a game where I put H-Z and mistook it for H_Z and missed two questions. From that point, I always made sure that my sequencing lines were twice as long as my underscores, such that H_ _Z equaled in length the H--Z line, as to avoid any potential confusion. This is the only instance I can recall where the tree method caused some issue globally, and it is easily avoided with either good handwriting or improved awareness.

Good luck!