Last minute LG question: Best way to do rule-sub questions? Forum

[kpuc]

The rule substitution question that appeared on PT 57, 58, and 59 appears to be a new type of question. I was caught off-guard when I first saw it, and I guessed correctly. The 2nd time, I figured it out but not through any solid method. The 3rd time, I kind of had a method worked out, and I was just wondering if it's the one you all use.

So when I get a rule sub question, I refer back to all my prior hypotheticals, and I apply each rule sub to see if I would get the same result. If an A/C proposes a rule sub that doesn't correlate with a prior hypothetical, then it is crossed off. You'll usually need at least two hypotheticals because unless you're lucky, one hypothetical will usually not eliminate 4 rule subs. I just keep doing this until there's only one A/C left with a rule sub that's consistent in every hypothetical.

Is this the method?

[Diiizzzzoooo]

I haven't done those PTs yet, so I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but it sounds to me to be nothing more than a "Which of the following, if true" question, or similar to a "suppose if a rule says...". I could be wrong, however.

[coffeetable]

This is exactly what i am doing. for the game with a substitution question, I mark all the possibilities that worked before in other questions in that game so I can use them to see if the sub rules are working or not. I am pretty sure this is a solid method. I hardly miss a question on LG.

[justadude55]

The rule substitution question that appeared on PT 57, 58, and 59 appears to be a new type of question. I was caught off-guard when I first saw it, and I guessed correctly. The 2nd time, I figured it out but not through any solid method. The 3rd time, I kind of had a method worked out, and I was just wondering if it's the one you all use.

So when I get a rule sub question, I refer back to all my prior hypotheticals, and I apply each rule sub to see if I would get the same result. If an A/C proposes a rule sub that doesn't correlate with a prior hypothetical, then it is crossed off. You'll usually need at least two hypotheticals because unless you're lucky, one hypothetical will usually not eliminate 4 rule subs. I just keep doing this until there's only one A/C left with a rule sub that's consistent in every hypothetical.

Is this the method?

well any deduction you made with the old rule is invalid, but the other rules still stand.

normally, you just need to make a subtle change.

there's no "approach." just treat the new rule like you would any other rule, and make any deductions you can to save time.

by the way it's not a new thing, it's been on about half the sections since PT 1.

[kpuc]

The rule substitution question that appeared on PT 57, 58, and 59 appears to be a new type of question. I was caught off-guard when I first saw it, and I guessed correctly. The 2nd time, I figured it out but not through any solid method. The 3rd time, I kind of had a method worked out, and I was just wondering if it's the one you all use.

So when I get a rule sub question, I refer back to all my prior hypotheticals, and I apply each rule sub to see if I would get the same result. If an A/C proposes a rule sub that doesn't correlate with a prior hypothetical, then it is crossed off. You'll usually need at least two hypotheticals because unless you're lucky, one hypothetical will usually not eliminate 4 rule subs. I just keep doing this until there's only one A/C left with a rule sub that's consistent in every hypothetical.

Is this the method?

well any deduction you made with the old rule is invalid, but the other rules still stand.

normally, you just need to make a subtle change.

there's no "approach." just treat the new rule like you would any other rule, and make any deductions you can to save time.

by the way it's not a new thing, it's been on about half the sections since PT 1.

I think it's pretty new. I've done PTs starting from 9 and I've never seen questions quite like the one I'm talking about.

Maybe you're talking about the ones where they introduce NEW rules? I remember those. But the ones I'm talking about are different because they introduce a new rule yet they still want the same effect as before.

Why am I still on TLS? Good night all!