.

[BerkeleyMan5]

.

[aboutmydaylight]

Personally I tend to approach them as follows:

Draw out a main diagram with subsets. For example if the question says their are 3 teams, AB on Red, CD on Blue, and EFG on Green, I'd draw a diagram like this:

R: A B
B: C D
G: E F G

After this I'd diagram the rules under/off to the side. I've noticed that when the variables are divided into groups, the rules typically only have like 3/4 conditionals at most, and they rarely link up. When the variables are not grouped, there tends to be more rules/more linkage.

Make note especially of the either/or rules as these tend to be the trickiest to spot when referring to your rules. For example if the rule calls for "If not C, then F", I'd write off to the side AT LEAST ONE OF [C/F]. This also helps tremendously when a question asks you about min/max.

After this, take note of the possible combinations and write those off to the side, especially if there's only a few. For example if a rule calls for 4 people to be chosen and at least one from each group, I'd write:

2 1 1
1 2 1
1 1 2

These are all the possible ways to arrange the selection. Also at this point look to the groups that aren't as "normal" as other groups. In this case, G has 3 people while R and B have only 2. You should be able to quickly infer that not all 3 can be chosen at the same time.

At this point I'd attack the questions and re-write my main diagram for almost every single one. I'd circle a variable when it was in, and cross if out if it was out. I've found this method will allow you to easily get every question type this type of game can throw at you except one. The hardest questions are the ones that ask which one of the following variables must be selected, or which one of the following pairs must one variable be chosen from. It would work sometimes, but often times it wouldn't be. I'd skip this and come back to it after you have hypotheticals. You should be able to knock off 2 and if you're lucky, 3 answer choices and just test the rest. I'm not sure if there's a better method for this type of question but I've always found it the most time consuming.

Personally this was my second best game type after basic linear because I'd always find it easy to quickly double check an answer and there rarely seemed to be any curveballs.

[izzy895]

Not to take anything away from the post above, but I find that manhattan lsat's method is really good for in out games. I'm not sure if its explained on their website but you can find their diagrams in the forum for particular games. I ignored it when I went through their book because I liked my method of just writing out the conditionals and looking at chains, but their chain set up is great and makes those games very easy I'd definitely check it out.

[iamgeorgebush]

Make two columns, one for in and one for out. If a rule says A(in) --> B(out), then I put A in the "in" column" and B in the "out" column with an arrow from A to B, and draw its contrapositive as well (if B is "in," then A is "out"). Do that with all the rules.

[tofuspeedstar]

I make 2 diagrams, find the two rules that restrict the most and make them based on that. I did this repetitively because I had the most trouble with them leading to October, and lo and behold one showed up on the Oct exam. I finished it in blazing time.


PT61 Game #1 was the game I used to master this approach. In doing this I found I could answer one of the common questions that shows up on these games which is "which pair HAS to be in the x at all times?"

[BerkeleyMan5]

.

[jordan15]

I just draw a box and put everything either in or out. Even just the box with nothing else is a million times better than columns or rewriting rules. It just clicks when you're thinking about a rule while looking at an actual box.

[vuthy]

7sage method is so good on these that I believe the LSAT will no longer have In/Out games -- or at least not straightforward ones -- within a few years. He's completely cracked them. Start and end there.

[iamgeorgebush]

7sage method is so good on these that I believe the LSAT will no longer have In/Out games -- or at least not straightforward ones -- within a few years. He's completely cracked them. Start and end there.

I don't know, there was a very straightforward in/out game in October.

[vuthy]

7sage method is so good on these that I believe the LSAT will no longer have In/Out games -- or at least not straightforward ones -- within a few years. He's completely cracked them. Start and end there.

I don't know, there was a very straightforward in/out game in October.

Right but those tests are put together well in advance. I just think that within a few years, they will realize that someone cracked that game type and has essentially made it too easy, especially since it's free and on YouTube. Sounds like I'm exaggerating but I really think it's going to go down that way.

[jordan15]

7sage method is so good on these that I believe the LSAT will no longer have In/Out games -- or at least not straightforward ones -- within a few years. He's completely cracked them. Start and end there.

I don't know, there was a very straightforward in/out game in October.

Right but those tests are put together well in advance. I just think that within a few years, they will realize that someone cracked that game type and has essentially made it too easy, especially since it's free and on YouTube. Sounds like I'm exaggerating but I really think it's going to go down that way.

Lots of people think that many types of LGs are too easy. Those people will continue to score highly and everyone else will continue to get flustered. A youtube video is not going to change that.

Plus there has to be a mix of levels of difficulty. It wouldn't be a good test if they were all hard. That's how we separate the 130s (who are really lost) from the 150s (who can get the easy ones) from the 170s (who understand every nuance). The LSAT is trying to gauge everyone's ability relative to everyone else's. It's not out to get you and designed so only the strongest survive and everyone else fails.

[vuthy]

Lots of people think that many types of LGs are too easy. Those people will continue to score highly and everyone else will continue to get flustered. A youtube video is not going to change that.

Plus there has to be a mix of levels of difficulty. It wouldn't be a good test if they were all hard. That's how we separate the 130s (who are really lost) from the 150s (who can get the easy ones) from the 170s (who understand every nuance). The LSAT is trying to gauge everyone's ability relative to everyone else's. It's not out to get you and designed so only the strongest survive and everyone else fails.

Can't disagree w/ any of this. I suppose what I am saying is that I think some I/O games that were tested as experimentals a few years ago, and assessed to be of level of difficulty x, are going to turn out to perform as easier than LSAC predicted -- even if only for the higher scorers who take the time to learn 7sage's method. Maybe you're right, and so few people (relatively speaking) watch his videos that it won't make a dent. I just think the number is actually big enough to affect the expected difficulty level of those games.

[Metaplay]

I happen to think Manhattan's strategy off InNOut games is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Just takes a little getting used to.

[longlivetheking]

greatest thing since sliced bread.

this might be pushing it.