How bad were you at logic games to start? Forum

[ArchRoark]

Some of the inferences that are drawn in the LGB for setups that make some of the later questions very trivial seem to confuse me on how I was supposed to just "see" that. For example...on page 98 of the LGB for game 2 on sep1998 test, the explanation draws a "not law" for s in the 3rd spot. S, which is supposed to be a free random, is somehow determined that it cannot fit into that space because a hypothetical involving that variable there would be impossible to draw. Now how is one supposed to draw that kind of inference as they are drawing the diagram? Is hypothetically placing variables supposed to be part of the diagram drawing? The explanation proves this not law by inferring a chain of about 4 other resulting variables with the last one being impossible, thus proving the S cannot be placed in that spot. I don't understand how someone could "see" this short of having some godlike ability of juggling variables in their head *very* quickly.

Now I don't quite remember how that inference impacted the questions since its been a few days, but I just remember looking at that explanation and comparing it to my diagram and wondering how the f they got that out of the rules. There seems to be a few more games following that where inferences are drawn from seemingly unrelated rules, that in turn make some of the questions trivial. Is being able to draw these inferences the secret to really getting games done fast? And is there a method I can use to help me see these?

It comes with practice... by the end those things just stood out to me. BTW you don't always need every possible inference to complete a game with total accuracy... you need to jungle between having a solid diagram that you feel comfortable with while at the same time not spending an exorbitant amount of time on it. The trade off is... a lot of time whens you unlock these key inferences you can blaze through the game rather quickly.

[holybartender]

On my first diagnostic I answered a whopping 13 questions. I ended up with a -2 on exam day.

[skip james]

Some of the inferences that are drawn in the LGB for setups that make some of the later questions very trivial seem to confuse me on how I was supposed to just "see" that. For example...on page 98 of the LGB for game 2 on sep1998 test, the explanation draws a "not law" for s in the 3rd spot. S, which is supposed to be a free random, is somehow determined that it cannot fit into that space because a hypothetical involving that variable there would be impossible to draw. Now how is one supposed to draw that kind of inference as they are drawing the diagram? Is hypothetically placing variables supposed to be part of the diagram drawing? The explanation proves this not law by inferring a chain of about 4 other resulting variables with the last one being impossible, thus proving the S cannot be placed in that spot. I don't understand how someone could "see" this short of having some godlike ability of juggling variables in their head *very* quickly.

Now I don't quite remember how that inference impacted the questions since its been a few days, but I just remember looking at that explanation and comparing it to my diagram and wondering how the f they got that out of the rules. There seems to be a few more games following that where inferences are drawn from seemingly unrelated rules, that in turn make some of the questions trivial. Is being able to draw these inferences the secret to really getting games done fast? And is there a method I can use to help me see these?

I just took a look at that game. I wouldn't worry about the not S in 3, the game is perfectly solvable without it. In fact, I don't think I ever realized that S couldn't go in 3, and I've solved this game a ton of times. Personally, I believe it's sorta obnoxious for Powerscore to include that not rule in there, since it's unlikely to be derived in a realistic (i.e. pressure + time) setting, and therefore completely useless since it's not going to be the sort of inference I can use during the test.

I do like using a dual setup for this game though, mostly because of the first rule is a 2 spot rule, placing P in 1 or 7, and the fact that there is a PM rule and and MT rule, which allows makes a dual setup worthwhile, i.e. we're going to have lots of stuff written in.