Top Law Schools

Hey everyone,

I'm doing my daily LSAT prep and I'm focusing on Linear Games right now. I've found that the biggest trouble I have is that I look too hard to find inferences in certain situations. For example, #12 in the LGB (the one on page 57), there are around 3-4 conditionals and then other rules that don't really allow you to suss out a lot of "Must be True" inferences. Thus your set-up diagram is rather incomplete, and you only yield one or so 'Not Laws.' I just wanted to know, how much emphasis should be put on Not Laws? I feel like even with some diagrams that you can write out all the Not Laws (or pretty much all the useful ones), it still takes too much time to write them all out. With practice I can get better, but I still feel like if it doesn't jump out at you, you should just move on and start going with the questions. When you are answering questions, you eventually see what can and cannot be anyways as long as you have a strong grasp on the rules.

Yet, of course, I still always look for Nots and other inferences such as limiting options etc, and if i can't find them then I am doing something wrong. I spent a lot of time on that stupid doctor setup to only find out that I inferred everything I could.

Is there something about conditionals that, in general, do not lead to set-in-stone inferences and when do you call it quits on the Nots and just move on?

Would definitely like your opinion on this because I want to know if, even though I'm adding data to my Master Diagram, this is making the process LONGER yet not efficient.

Thank you!!

Tone is difficult to get across with a qwerty, so allow me to first declare my sincerity: Do five more LGs focusing on forgetting about revealing all the NLs in the diagram--just doing what is immediately apparent--and then re-post the question if you still have a problem.

Since you are working through the LGB and in an early portion of it, keep doing the drills/exercises thoroughly and seeking out all available global deductions you can find and note on your set-up with not laws, dual options, etc. They are meant to get you thinking about, analyzing, and figuring out the implications of the interaction of the sets of rules in the context/framework of the game scenario.

Even though on test day once you are more skilled and experienced with solving LG's efficiently you will probably not be trying to write out (and may not need) a full, perfect, comprehensive with every available deduction set-up for each game scenario like you see in books, forcing yourself to try to do that while learning the LG section should help get you familiar with recognizing the implications of similar commonly repeated rule combination/game constructions that are useful for solving the questions.

Doing the drills makes you explore and think through the various ins and outs of the logical interactions of each game so you grasp and can solve it and so that when you see something similar in a different game you recognize the important deductions quickly.

With more practice and exposure to the various game varieties you should build up a better feel for the practical aspect of knowing when to stop working on the set-up in order to attack the questions.