Hey Roranoa -- I just tried this game again -- here are some thoughts you might find helpful --roranoa wrote:Hey Mike, I just did pt68 and I bombed at the very last game, the one with sorting seven articles.
I had so much time left (like 13min) and later I ran out of time. Something about this game made really difficult. I usually don't write in much inferences with ordering games and just go straight for the q's. Do you think that would be a wrong approach with this one?
To be more specific, what I usually do is just plug in whatever premise a "if q" would present me with and go from there. So if it says "if X is fourth" I would plug that in and make up a scenario where all the rules are factored in and works. I do this especially with MBT q's but also with could be true q's.
Would this approach be wrong for this game? (Im thinking maybe it is)
1) This is your classic backend game -- different types of rules (1st - subset ordering, 2nd - conditional, 3rd&4th basic ordering) that don't initially "link" together to yield significant inferences. (Not sure which inferences you were hoping to find, but I didn't find any key ones during my initial setup).
To give an analogy: simple ordering -- (bunch of relative ordering rules -- L before F, F before K, etc.) -- like having to juggle seven tennis balls at once.
A game like this (lots of different types of rules that don't link up) -- like juggling only four items, but they are a bowling ball, a tennis ball, a beach ball, and pair of keys --
The challenge for the first situation is to deal with a lot of inferences that are all similar; the challenge of the second situation is to bring together a lot of different types of inferences -- keep in mind that a lot of the "tough" games of late have been backend games like this one.
2) Two keys to backend games -- you need to have systems that come together -- that is, if you solve a subset ordering game in a totally different way than yo do a subset grouping game, and then you get a game with subsets, ordering, and grouping, you are screwed. Make sure all the various systems you learn relate to one another and can be combined. The other key is that you need absolute comfort with your notational systems--you know that without a lot to figure out up front, and with all these rules to deal with, you are going to need to make a lot of tough inferences at the point of the questions -- it's virtually impossible to do that unless your notations are totally intuitive.
3) If you aren't using my lowercase system for subsets (chapter 11), I strongly urge you to give it a shot. For me at least (and for some students I've talked with), it makes dealing with subsets a hell of a lot easier -- it is especially helpful in terms of thinking about subsets relative to other types of rules (ordering and grouping, for example), which we pretty much have to do any time we have subsets.
4) Next time you have 13 minutes for the final game, try to solve it in 8 minutes. I think we let ourselves "slow down and be super-careful" and sometimes that can screw us up. To me, having 13 minutes left doesn't tell me I have 13 minutes to solve it once -- it tells me I have 8 minutes to solve it once, and 5 minutes to solve it again in case I screw up.
Be like Bo and just run through that end zone -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BQ72rE6iyw
5) Small tip -- that first rule is a tough one to handle for the first q (rules question) -- that's a classic time-sucker -- in that situation, make sure to jump ahead to other rules and use those to eliminate other choices first. You can come back to the tough to evaluate rule at the end when you only have 2 answer choices left, and save yourself time.
6) To me, the keys to this game turned out the be the no two in a subset next to each other rule, and the conditional rule -- I didn't really know they would be the key until I worked on the first few problems -- when nothing jumps out at you during setup as being most important (if the third and fourth rules had linked together somehow to create a big chunk, that would have clearly been most important, but here no such "big keys" exist), let your work on the first few q's dictate how a game should go/what your priorities ought to be.
7) Thinking about this simply as an ordering game, and expecting to make all the same types of ordering inferences you normally might, may make you pay less attention to the above two rules, and more attention to the two more basic ordering rules, and that would definitely make these q's feel harder/go slower. Make sure to understand and utilize tendencies, but also make sure to react to the specific situations games present and don't try to fit games into your comfort zone/how you "plan" for them to go, when they don't naturally fit there. In this case, even though it's an ordering game, we had no ordering rules link together up front, and no key ordering inferences to make up front; instead, we had a lot of different types of rules we had to bring together. Therefore, I went into the q's a lot more uncertain of the type of work I would have to do than I would for a more "standard" ordering-only game.
As always, not sure which of the above relates to your situation, but I hope you find at least some of it helpful --
Mike
). I'll know for sure once I get my score, but I'm pretty confident it's going to be a score I'm happy with. Thanks for all your help!
