In-Out Games Forum

[macaulian]

I posted this on the long "OMG LG HARD ME CRY" thread, but I wanted to put this out in general. Is it just me or are people way way to afraid/bad at these relatively easy games? When I say they are easy, I mean once you learn one in-out game, you know them all. Mathematically there arent that many ways to construct one of these. This is in contrast to the ordering and grouping problems where you can have a lot more variability structurally. I think every In-Out game I have done has been the same. They always give you a minimum number of items that are in, and then a list of exclusions. You just set up the conditionals, grouping as much information together as possible (if it tells you p->~q and r->q, you would write p->~q->~r, since you can bet your ass they will ask the question: if p is in which must be true...). Seriously, I could make a little video and show you guys how easy these are, its just formal logic, nothing fancy. Am I wrong? Arent they all the same?

[Mr. Matlock]

I posted this on the long "OMG LG HARD ME CRY" thread, but I wanted to put this out in general. Is it just me or are people way way to afraid/bad at these relatively easy games? When I say they are easy, I mean once you learn one in-out game, you know them all. Mathematically there arent that many ways to construct one of these. This is in contrast to the ordering and grouping problems where you can have a lot more variability structurally. I think every In-Out game I have done has been the same. They always give you a minimum number of items that are in, and then a list of exclusions. You just set up the conditionals, grouping as much information together as possible (if it tells you p->~q and r->q, you would write p->~q->~r, since you can bet your ass they will ask the question: if p is in which must be true...). Seriously, I could make a little video and show you guys how easy these are, its just formal logic, nothing fancy. Am I wrong? Arent they all the same?

No, you're right. You're a genius and we're all just a bunch of big, dumb fucking idiots. If you do a video, please speak slowly and try to incorporate some cool pictures.

Thank you.

[JCougar]

Here's what I have to say about in/out games:



--ImageRemoved--

Stay away, demon!!

[tomwatts]

Well, the fourth game on 58 was a little different (a conditional chain was of little-to-no use, as far as I could tell), and there are a few others out there that are a little odd. But yeah, I've always felt that conventional In/Out games ought to be easy, myself. But I think some people just don't get conditionals; I've had to stop students from reading them right-to-left (e.g. the clue says if G is in then F is in, so you write G -> F, and the question says that F is in, and the students want to say that G is necessarily in) even after we've done a BUNCH of them, and I've seen a lot of other silly mistakes like that.

Well, and the dinos were just time-consuming. Weird In/Out games can suck, just like any other games.

[skip james]

Well, the fourth game on 58 was a little different (a conditional chain was of little-to-no use, as far as I could tell), and there are a few others out there that are a little odd. But yeah, I've always felt that conventional In/Out games ought to be easy, myself. But I think some people just don't get conditionals; I've had to stop students from reading them right-to-left (e.g. the clue says if G is in then F is in, so you write G -> F, and the question says that F is in, and the students want to say that G is necessarily in) even after we've done a BUNCH of them, and I've seen a lot of other silly mistakes like that.

Well, and the dinos were just time-consuming. Weird In/Out games can suck, just like any other games.

yeah but even in 58, all you have to do is write out the conditionals, then the contrapositives, then combine them. which is essentially the task for a chain game.

but yeah, i know what you're talking about with students and the arrows. but seriously, for such an important aspect of the lsat, it hurts me that students can be so lazy and neglect fully understanding them.

[TTTennis]

No, you're right. You're a genius and we're all just a bunch of big, dumb fucking idiots. If you do a video, please speak slowly and try to incorporate some cool pictures.

Thank you.

hahaha +1

[keg411]

I think sometimes they take longer to "get" for some people. I had trouble with them for months and months and months and then it finally all clicked for me and now I do fine at them.

[monkeyboy]

I posted this on the long "OMG LG HARD ME CRY" thread, but I wanted to put this out in general. Is it just me or are people way way to afraid/bad at these relatively easy games? When I say they are easy, I mean once you learn one in-out game, you know them all. Mathematically there arent that many ways to construct one of these. This is in contrast to the ordering and grouping problems where you can have a lot more variability structurally. I think every In-Out game I have done has been the same. They always give you a minimum number of items that are in, and then a list of exclusions. You just set up the conditionals, grouping as much information together as possible (if it tells you p->~q and r->q, you would write p->~q->~r, since you can bet your ass they will ask the question: if p is in which must be true...). Seriously, I could make a little video and show you guys how easy these are, its just formal logic, nothing fancy. Am I wrong? Arent they all the same?

Here is the problem with those games: (I did well on LG today, but....) If you haven't prepared for them you will get burned. One has to do them over and over until the switch flips. People understand how it works. It's just the chain reaction aspect that twists people up as they try to find the answer. The minimum, maximum questions attached to these games are hard at first. You gotta study them over and over and then, like that (snap!), you get it. It's crazy. If one goes without studying these game types for a while after figuring them out, it's back to square one. That's how it works for me.

[existenz]

I posted this on the long "OMG LG HARD ME CRY" thread, but I wanted to put this out in general. Is it just me or are people way way to afraid/bad at these relatively easy games? When I say they are easy, I mean once you learn one in-out game, you know them all. Mathematically there arent that many ways to construct one of these. This is in contrast to the ordering and grouping problems where you can have a lot more variability structurally. I think every In-Out game I have done has been the same. They always give you a minimum number of items that are in, and then a list of exclusions. You just set up the conditionals, grouping as much information together as possible (if it tells you p->~q and r->q, you would write p->~q->~r, since you can bet your ass they will ask the question: if p is in which must be true...). Seriously, I could make a little video and show you guys how easy these are, its just formal logic, nothing fancy. Am I wrong? Arent they all the same?

They are not all the same. Some require much deeper inferences than others. I usually do pretty well with in-out games, but trails (with Maples/Spruces/Oaks, etc) really perplexed me. Two of the questions just didn't seem to have obvious right answers even when consulting my diagram (Ex. If X is in, which of these could/cannot be true? questions). It would have required too much time to play out each scenario. PT 58 and PT 59 had much easier in-out games.

Anyway, a game that might seem easy to you one day can be horribly difficult on another day, depending on what approach you take or what you are looking for. But I honestly would have preferred Dinos (with a clear setup and limited scenarios) to today's Trails game.

[tomwatts]

yeah but even in 58, all you have to do is write out the conditionals, then the contrapositives, then combine them. which is essentially the task for a chain game.

That was more entertaining when I read the last couple of words as "chain gang."

[skip james]

I think sometimes they take longer to "get" for some people. I had trouble with them for months and months and months and then it finally all clicked for me and now I do fine at them.

this is definitely true, and i don't fault people for not getting it right away. but when the mis-understandings arise from lack of effort or time spent on understanding conditionals, then it is sort of frustrating. you have to be the arrow. you need to dream about the arrow. your pillows should be arranged on your bed in the shape of an arrow. i tell my students that the first thing they should say to me when they see me is 'hey, point me in the right direction'.

[macaulian]

Im starting to think that people just dont learn the rules of conditionals. Here is the link to the online text I roughly followed when I taught logic:

--LinkRemoved--

Probably the most relevant part is where it discusses phrasings of the conditional, which can be confusing. I disagree that you have to do these over and over, all you really have to do is learn conditionals inside and out (ha ha) and that will help you on the rest of the test anyway.

[skip james]

yeah but even in 58, all you have to do is write out the conditionals, then the contrapositives, then combine them. which is essentially the task for a chain game.

That was more entertaining when I read the last couple of words as "chain gang."

i actually thought that phrase sounded funny as i was writing it, but i couldn't quite put my finger on it.

[macaulian]

I posted this on the long "OMG LG HARD ME CRY" thread, but I wanted to put this out in general. Is it just me or are people way way to afraid/bad at these relatively easy games? When I say they are easy, I mean once you learn one in-out game, you know them all. Mathematically there arent that many ways to construct one of these. This is in contrast to the ordering and grouping problems where you can have a lot more variability structurally. I think every In-Out game I have done has been the same. They always give you a minimum number of items that are in, and then a list of exclusions. You just set up the conditionals, grouping as much information together as possible (if it tells you p->~q and r->q, you would write p->~q->~r, since you can bet your ass they will ask the question: if p is in which must be true...). Seriously, I could make a little video and show you guys how easy these are, its just formal logic, nothing fancy. Am I wrong? Arent they all the same?

They are not all the same. Some require much deeper inferences than others. I usually do pretty well with in-out games, but trails (with Maples/Spruces/Oaks, etc) really perplexed me. Two of the questions just didn't seem to have obvious right answers even when consulting my diagram (Ex. If X is in, which of these could/cannot be true? questions). It would have required too much time to play out each scenario. PT 58 and PT 59 had much easier in-out games.

Anyway, a game that might seem easy to you one day can be horribly difficult on another day, depending on what approach you take or what you are looking for. But I honestly would have preferred Dinos (with a clear setup and limited scenarios) to today's Trails game.

Ok, I just think you didnt ever see how to work those questions out, but if you saw it once, you would know it. Those questions all depended on the fact that they told you there was a minimum number of items that had to be in. That means that you can/cant include certain things given other things are in/notin because that would prevent you from having enough members of the group. Those questions everyone freaked out about today all dealt with minimum sized groups and it was usually there where 3/4 options remaining, which would burn off too many other options.

[letsdoit1982]

I think in-out games (undefined games) are the most difficult. They are extremely time consuming, and I never know if I have found all the necessary inferences.

[nStiver]

No, you're right. You're a genius and we're all just a bunch of big, dumb fucking idiots. If you do a video, please speak slowly and try to incorporate some cool pictures.

Thank you.

hahahah, this almost made me cry.