I'm referring to a setup like in this 7sage video: http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat ... -2-game-2/

When do you guys decide to use a grid set up in games? What ques you to do so? I always find these games the hardest because I do not decide to go with the grid setup and often find its the most efficient setup. Problem is, I don't know what queues you to do so.

Thanks in advance.

## when doing LG's, when do you know to do a grid-style setup?

- flash21
**Posts:**1536**Joined:**Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:56 pm

- Louis1127
**Posts:**817**Joined:**Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:12 pm

### Re: when doing LG's, when do you know to do a grid-style setup?

When I first saw the 7sage description, I was about to comment: Oh my God that game was hell, because I thouhgt it was the game about the tourists and the guides and who spoke French and Russian and all that jazz.

I diagrammed this game the "normal" grouping way- the little "T chart". Sorry I cannot help. But you can do it that way.

I diagrammed this game the "normal" grouping way- the little "T chart". Sorry I cannot help. But you can do it that way.

- Jeffort
**Posts:**1888**Joined:**Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:43 pm

### Re: when doing LG's, when do you know to do a grid-style setup?

Using a full grid/chart with one set of variables for column and the other for rows is rarely the optimal type of base to use for LSAT LGs since they can be very confusing to interpret quickly on the fly without having to put in extra effort/mental calculations in your head to put things together. They also by nature fail to clearly/visibly illustrate established (whether explicitly defined or ascertained via deductions) numerical distribution parameters about one of the variable sets that is crucial to quickly making other key deductions. Basically they fail to clearly illustrate the fundamental constraints and possibilities of the game that it revolves around in obvious/easily accessible from just a glance ways without having to analyze the diagram itself to interpret it over and over while trying to solve questions.

In this case, it's just a basic grouping game with defined group sizes and then a few different numerical distribution possibilities for the other variable set in terms of repeater combinations with the 4 variables to fill 8 spots. One of the important steps in setting up each game is thinking through all the information for a few moments to figure out an optimal way to organize the information in a way that is easily visually understandable at a glance for mental manipulation/analysis of possibilities.

This game clearly dictated your basic set-up foundation in the actual order for you to write it out slot by slot as long as you figured out that it was a grouping game and the languages were the groups to use as the base of the set-up an assign slots to.

R _

S _ _

T _ _

Y _ _ _

GHLP

G -> ~L

G -> ~P

G -> H

Then from there it's super simple to make the not rules about G for groups R & Y. Once you write that in next to the Y group, it becomes obvious that with only four available variables to fill the slots and one ruled out, H, L and P must fill group Y. Then you fill that stuff in and have the below diagram on your page from minimal steps just organizing the basic info efficiently and writing in obvious deductions.

R _ ~G

S _ _

T _ _

Y H L P ~G

GHLP

G -> ~L

G -> ~P

G -> H

Next obvious thing that visually jumps right out with that basic in front of you is that there are only two possible places for G ->H, either group S or T or both (you have to do a little analysis to determine both works). You can then quickly break out templates if you want but there aren't any more concrete things to fill into them within the three GH scenarios once break them apart, a few possibilities still remain in each.

Maybe it's just me, but I find a simple defined grouping base much easier to interpret/analyze and make sense of on the fly than those horrible confusing to interpret quickly grid graphs JY has going in that video and all the waste of time steps he took to getting to his basic overly complex templates rather than just realizing it was a defined grouping game from the stated rules.

Grids with checks and Xs are mainly only efficient for mixed variable distribution games where both sets of variables involved have several numerical distribution possibilities in terms of re-use/repeater possibilities. Whenever a game gives you something fixed/defined you can nail down with slots to fill from a different defined variable set, use it as your base and write your deductions and stuff around/on it. Confusing/overly complex set-ups with too much information/too many game boards to sort through for solving questions can be detrimental to being able to quickly solve questions using your set-up.

Try just using something like this to solve all the questions and see how it goes compered to making and using those grids with pieces of information represented multiple ways that make it confusing to read.

R _ ~G

S _ _ (G->H) S or T or both (and then group is full)

T _ _

Y H L P ~G

GHLP

G -> ~L

G -> ~P

G->H

On paper I'd draw lines connecting the G->H rule on the right to a ) bracket on the right side of the S & T slots to make it visually clear GH is going to fill at least one of those two groups or both, which is what all the questions revolve around.

Makes the game pretty quick and easy that way with a simple easy to interpret diagram that is easy to manipulate in your head without much effort to solve questions quickly, at least it did for the hundreds of students I taught this game to live in classes over the years.

I've haven't watched any of JY's/7Sage other Free LG explanation videos people talk about, but I really hope this one is not an example of the average quality of his methods and what he considers to be efficient set-ups for use in attacking questions quickly. It way over complicates thing for this game. One key skill to mastering games is being able to figure out efficient ways to organize the important info and relationships the game revolves around in useful ways for quick easy visual interpretation based on the types of relationships involved so you come up with something you can work with quickly and easily without confusion to accurately solve questions with as little additional analysis as necessary.

Full grids can usually be avoided by figuring out the parameters of your variable sets and how the game has you putting them together with whatever types of relationships the rules establish between the sets and variable set parameters. When there is numerical distribution involved with any of the variable sets, you should simply recognize and analyze that aspect before rushing into making a generic grid cuz feel rushed by time or whatever and use the variable set parameters and type of game as your guides in figuring out optimal set-up methods for various game configurations before rushing into putting pencil to paper.

In this case, it's just a basic grouping game with defined group sizes and then a few different numerical distribution possibilities for the other variable set in terms of repeater combinations with the 4 variables to fill 8 spots. One of the important steps in setting up each game is thinking through all the information for a few moments to figure out an optimal way to organize the information in a way that is easily visually understandable at a glance for mental manipulation/analysis of possibilities.

This game clearly dictated your basic set-up foundation in the actual order for you to write it out slot by slot as long as you figured out that it was a grouping game and the languages were the groups to use as the base of the set-up an assign slots to.

R _

S _ _

T _ _

Y _ _ _

GHLP

G -> ~L

G -> ~P

G -> H

Then from there it's super simple to make the not rules about G for groups R & Y. Once you write that in next to the Y group, it becomes obvious that with only four available variables to fill the slots and one ruled out, H, L and P must fill group Y. Then you fill that stuff in and have the below diagram on your page from minimal steps just organizing the basic info efficiently and writing in obvious deductions.

R _ ~G

S _ _

T _ _

Y H L P ~G

GHLP

G -> ~L

G -> ~P

G -> H

Next obvious thing that visually jumps right out with that basic in front of you is that there are only two possible places for G ->H, either group S or T or both (you have to do a little analysis to determine both works). You can then quickly break out templates if you want but there aren't any more concrete things to fill into them within the three GH scenarios once break them apart, a few possibilities still remain in each.

Maybe it's just me, but I find a simple defined grouping base much easier to interpret/analyze and make sense of on the fly than those horrible confusing to interpret quickly grid graphs JY has going in that video and all the waste of time steps he took to getting to his basic overly complex templates rather than just realizing it was a defined grouping game from the stated rules.

Grids with checks and Xs are mainly only efficient for mixed variable distribution games where both sets of variables involved have several numerical distribution possibilities in terms of re-use/repeater possibilities. Whenever a game gives you something fixed/defined you can nail down with slots to fill from a different defined variable set, use it as your base and write your deductions and stuff around/on it. Confusing/overly complex set-ups with too much information/too many game boards to sort through for solving questions can be detrimental to being able to quickly solve questions using your set-up.

Try just using something like this to solve all the questions and see how it goes compered to making and using those grids with pieces of information represented multiple ways that make it confusing to read.

R _ ~G

S _ _ (G->H) S or T or both (and then group is full)

T _ _

Y H L P ~G

GHLP

G -> ~L

G -> ~P

G->H

On paper I'd draw lines connecting the G->H rule on the right to a ) bracket on the right side of the S & T slots to make it visually clear GH is going to fill at least one of those two groups or both, which is what all the questions revolve around.

Makes the game pretty quick and easy that way with a simple easy to interpret diagram that is easy to manipulate in your head without much effort to solve questions quickly, at least it did for the hundreds of students I taught this game to live in classes over the years.

I've haven't watched any of JY's/7Sage other Free LG explanation videos people talk about, but I really hope this one is not an example of the average quality of his methods and what he considers to be efficient set-ups for use in attacking questions quickly. It way over complicates thing for this game. One key skill to mastering games is being able to figure out efficient ways to organize the important info and relationships the game revolves around in useful ways for quick easy visual interpretation based on the types of relationships involved so you come up with something you can work with quickly and easily without confusion to accurately solve questions with as little additional analysis as necessary.

Full grids can usually be avoided by figuring out the parameters of your variable sets and how the game has you putting them together with whatever types of relationships the rules establish between the sets and variable set parameters. When there is numerical distribution involved with any of the variable sets, you should simply recognize and analyze that aspect before rushing into making a generic grid cuz feel rushed by time or whatever and use the variable set parameters and type of game as your guides in figuring out optimal set-up methods for various game configurations before rushing into putting pencil to paper.

- Louis1127
**Posts:**817**Joined:**Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:12 pm

### Re: when doing LG's, when do you know to do a grid-style setup?

I could have sworn JY once did this game the way that Jeffort (and I, in a very unhelpful way) talked about with one diagram that had P, L, and H under group Y, G and H under group S or T, and H or L or P under group R. I swear he had to have changed it since a couple of moths ago when I first looked at this explanation.

I looked at the video he currently has on there and I have absolutely no idea what he is doing and it seems like he is making this game way more complicated than it needs to be, like Jeffort was saying.

I would definitely do it the way Jeffort was talking about, flash. Not only is it easier but feels much more natural and intuitive to set it up that way than with those damn boxes.

I looked at the video he currently has on there and I have absolutely no idea what he is doing and it seems like he is making this game way more complicated than it needs to be, like Jeffort was saying.

I would definitely do it the way Jeffort was talking about, flash. Not only is it easier but feels much more natural and intuitive to set it up that way than with those damn boxes.

- flash21
**Posts:**1536**Joined:**Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:56 pm

### Re: when doing LG's, when do you know to do a grid-style setup?

thanks jeff and louis

Return to â€œLSAT Prep and Discussion Forumâ€?

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 10 guests