Top Law Schools

How do you attack pure sequencing games? Anything better than Princeton Review's high/low chart?

pfla wrote:How do you attack pure sequencing games? Anything better than Princeton Review's high/low chart?

Take each individual rule and link them as best you can. Try and fit it all into one chart or diagram. Then make sure to stop a moment and THINK about the diagram. Make some deductions and try to get a feel for what can go where. Don't try and do it with all the rules separated and broken up.

Do you think it's worth trying to figure out all of the deductions before moving onto the questions? Or do you think it's better to just work out the more obvious ones?

pfla wrote:Do you think it's worth trying to figure out all of the deductions before moving onto the questions? Or do you think it's better to just work out the more obvious ones?

It really depends on how quickly you can do it. Try and make as many deductions as you can. You can write out the usual linear diagram and write down the "not rules" that you see and find. This can be your record of deductions. You can also write out any dual options you may see.

dakatz wrote:

pfla wrote:Do you think it's worth trying to figure out all of the deductions before moving onto the questions? Or do you think it's better to just work out the more obvious ones?

It really depends on how quickly you can do it. Try and make as many deductions as you can. You can write out the usual linear diagram and write down the "not rules" that you see and find. This can be your record of deductions. You can also write out any dual options you may see.

Yeah, that's what I've been doing. I guess I just need to try to work on my speed. Thanks for your suggestions!

I love pure sequencing. I read the rules first just so I can tell which ones will link up together. Then make a "super chain" or whatever of the rules that go together and other rules underneath that and go to town.

eit wrote:I love pure sequencing. I read the rules first just so I can tell which ones will link up together. Then make a "super chain" or whatever of the rules that go together and other rules underneath that and go to town.

Yeah, they're definitely friendlier than some of the other games; however, they always manage to eat up my time. Fuckers.

I agree. pure sequencing is a refreshing change most of the time from other type of games. Pretty enjoyable to do.

rivermaker wrote:I agree. pure sequencing is a refreshing change most of the time from other type of games. Pretty enjoyable to do.

And what method do you use? Is it any different than any of the above-referenced?

I love Pure Sequencing. I pretty much just draw a little flowchart of all the rules, and there's not much more to it. I find Pure Sequencing to be relatively simple compared to some games.

I think there are two fairly useful strategies for these games. One is to create a diagram that includes all the relationships between the elements (as mentioned by others). Another is to briefly write out what elements can be 1st and which can be last. This gives you a preliminary understanding of the possible orderings that the questions will test you on.

It's a combo of powerscores and the Kaplan tree diagram. Kind of just merged into an ugly, but effective diagram. After I just list the possible firsts, lasts, and as many not laws as I can find

yzero1 wrote:I think there are two fairly useful strategies for these games. One is to create a diagram that includes all the relationships between the elements (as mentioned by others). Another is to briefly write out what elements can be 1st and which can be last. This gives you a preliminary understanding of the possible orderings that the questions will test you on.

That's a good idea about listing the possible 1sts and lasts... I already do well with Pure Sequencing but that definitely sounds like it could help.

The first chapter of our book deals with this sort of game - you might find it useful: http://www.atlaslsat.com/download/LG_Book_Excerpt.pdf

pfla wrote:How do you attack pure sequencing games? Anything better than Princeton Review's high/low chart?

Dude, you need to buy the Logic Games Bible. I was once in logic game purgatory like you. It is so superior to Kaplan and Princeton Review that it makes their materials look like a joke.

nStiver wrote:

pfla wrote:How do you attack pure sequencing games? Anything better than Princeton Review's high/low chart?

Dude, you need to buy the Logic Games Bible. I was once in logic game purgatory like you. It is so superior to Kaplan and Princeton Review that it makes their materials look like a joke.

Agreed.

eit wrote:I love pure sequencing. I read the rules first just so I can tell which ones will link up together. Then make a "super chain" or whatever of the rules that go together and other rules underneath that and go to town.

I hate hate hate pure sequencing. I use that method - the super chain - but I always end up with a huge mess! Help?

ly2010 wrote:

eit wrote:I love pure sequencing. I read the rules first just so I can tell which ones will link up together. Then make a "super chain" or whatever of the rules that go together and other rules underneath that and go to town.

I hate hate hate pure sequencing. I use that method - the super chain - but I always end up with a huge mess! Help?

Earlier I recommended writing out which elements can go first or last, but if you are really struggling I would definitely try writing out a few hypotheticals before you attempt the questions. This will help you figure out where certain elements can or cannot go. You'll attack the questions with a much better perspective of the relationships between the elements.

Do that, and stick with the LGB's diagramming advice. You should be acing Pure Sequencing games in no time.

yzero1 wrote:

ly2010 wrote:

eit wrote:I love pure sequencing. I read the rules first just so I can tell which ones will link up together. Then make a "super chain" or whatever of the rules that go together and other rules underneath that and go to town.

I hate hate hate pure sequencing. I use that method - the super chain - but I always end up with a huge mess! Help?

Earlier I recommended writing out which elements can go first or last, but if you are really struggling I would definitely try writing out a few hypotheticals before you attempt the questions. This will help you figure out where certain elements can or cannot go. You'll attack the questions with a much better perspective of the relationships between the elements.

Do that, and stick with the LGB's diagramming advice. You should be acing Pure Sequencing games in no time.

I actually don't think the LGB chapter on sequencing games is all that great. Although you'll still ace them (for the most part- there's a few beastly sequencing games out there), IMO it isn't the most efficient way to approach them in comparison to some companies that offer a branch/tree method.

Anaconda wrote:

yzero1 wrote:

ly2010 wrote:

eit wrote:I love pure sequencing. I read the rules first just so I can tell which ones will link up together. Then make a "super chain" or whatever of the rules that go together and other rules underneath that and go to town.

I hate hate hate pure sequencing. I use that method - the super chain - but I always end up with a huge mess! Help?

Earlier I recommended writing out which elements can go first or last, but if you are really struggling I would definitely try writing out a few hypotheticals before you attempt the questions. This will help you figure out where certain elements can or cannot go. You'll attack the questions with a much better perspective of the relationships between the elements.

Do that, and stick with the LGB's diagramming advice. You should be acing Pure Sequencing games in no time.

I actually don't think the LGB chapter on sequencing games is all that great. Although you'll still ace them (for the most part- there's a few beastly sequencing games out there), IMO it isn't the most efficient way to approach them in comparison to some companies that offer a branch/tree method.

Agreed. I'm looking to switch it up to possibly Atlas' method after sticking with Powerscore's sequencing method for a loooong time.

I've tried doing basic branches without arrows and dotted lines - is this the method you were referring to? Although this is a quicker way to draw out the relationships, this method does make it easier for you to confuse the relationships between variables, especially for those who make a lot of mistakes with the relationships to begin with. I find that the dotted separators do a good job of separating variables that do not have a fixed linear relationship with each other. But I think it eventually becomes a matter of personal preference. Once you get the hang of Pure Sequencing, it shouldn't really matter whether you use the LGB technique or the branch/tree method.