Manhattan vs. Powerscore LG Forum

[Easy-E]

I don't doubt this has already been asked, but I didn't have any luck searching. Has anyone read both Manhattan and Powerscore's LG books? Are the concepts complimentary or would it be detrimental to try to incorporate both? I've already read Nova and Powerscore's LG books, the former's LG section being mostly dedicated to creating hypotheticals and the latter concerned with frames and templates, so the ideas sort of meshed since one approach is usually best for each game.

And bonus question, I know the Nova Master the LSAT book isn't most peoples favorite, but I found it to have some useful information. Their seemed to be some extraneous LG types that aren't really mentioned anywhere else, such as the games where you created valid number/letter sequences following a list of rules, or the mapping games. Are these extinct?

[Verity]

Don't incorporate or even attempt to do so for LG. Learn Powerscore's system inside and out. That's all you need, and it's the most simple and powerful system.

[maxpower430]

honestly i really disagree with that notion. i'm assuming that you're studying for the oct test so you definitely have time to see what works best. for instance, i think the manhattan method for open assignment and in/out grouping is great (the powerscore in/out method never really clicked for me. similarly, i prefer lsatblog's in/out sequencing method to powerscore but with manhattan being tops). really i don't think there is a "right" way to approach logic games as there are several good methods that work for people and if there's anything that isn't clicking you'd be doing yourself a disservice not checking out other methods.

[Verity]

honestly i really disagree with that notion. i'm assuming that you're studying for the oct test so you definitely have time to see what works best. for instance, i think the manhattan method for open assignment and in/out grouping is great (the powerscore in/out method never really clicked for me. similarly, i prefer lsatblog's in/out sequencing method to powerscore but with manhattan being tops). really i don't think there is a "right" way to approach logic games as there are several good methods that work for people and if there's anything that isn't clicking you'd be doing yourself a disservice not checking out other methods.

If you can't get the LG Bible to "click," you probably won't be able to avoid confusing yourself between two different methods.

[maxpower430]

lol i simply found the method they propose for in/out grouping to be cumbersome and that using the methods laid out on lsatblog or manhattan make inferences easier. i by no means advocate combining methods of in/out grouping, but i like those methods better than the ones powerscore lays out. in almost every other way though the methods are the same (i.e. the methods for linear/advanced linear/open assignment are almost identical) but the approach to in/out is very different and for me was better.

[Easy-E]

lol i simply found the method they propose for in/out grouping to be cumbersome and that using the methods laid out on lsatblog or manhattan make inferences easier. i by no means advocate combining methods of in/out grouping, but i like those methods better than the ones powerscore lays out. in almost every other way though the methods are the same (i.e. the methods for linear/advanced linear/open assignment are almost identical) but the approach to in/out is very different and for me was better.

My bad, I should have mentioned that I am using the lsatblog's methods in conjunction with the LG bible. I think I'll just review the LG bible again and keep at it. I'm not doing terrible on LG or anything, but obviously I want the highest score possible.

[chasy_price]

I looked into both methods but I have to recommend ManhattanLSAT's methods. I personally think Manhattan's methods goes well with Powerscore (a lot of similar ideas) but for stuff like relative ordering games and open/closed assignment games I like Manhattan's methods a lot more (the tree and box system really works.)

In/out is tricky. I blend a couple methods and use the one that feels most natural for specific game.

[Easy-E]

I looked into both methods but I have to recommend ManhattanLSAT's methods. I personally think Manhattan's methods goes well with Powerscore (a lot of similar ideas) but for stuff like relative ordering games and open/closed assignment games I like Manhattan's methods a lot more (the tree and box system really works.)

In/out is tricky. I blend a couple methods and use the one that feels most natural for specific game.

Just picked up my copy of Manhattan's LG about an hour ago. Some of PS's stuff just wasn't clicking, so I'm gonna see how I do with MLSAT.

[Maye]

I looked into both methods but I have to recommend ManhattanLSAT's methods. I personally think Manhattan's methods goes well with Powerscore (a lot of similar ideas) but for stuff like relative ordering games and open/closed assignment games I like Manhattan's methods a lot more (the tree and box system really works.)

In/out is tricky. I blend a couple methods and use the one that feels most natural for specific game.

Same with me. I went through the games bible but for grouping and open/closed assignments, I use Manhattan. I just finished the Manhattan book a few minutes ago, actually, so it's fresh in my mind and might be why I'm feeling rather favorable towards it. But, it works.

[JamMasterJ]

Some of Manhattan's methods are superior to Powerscore's (such as in/out and basic lin), but PS is a little more comprehensive. Doing both doesn't seem to screw people up too much

[Easy-E]

Some of Manhattan's methods are superior to Powerscore's (such as in/out and basic lin), but PS is a little more comprehensive. Doing both doesn't seem to screw people up too much

Have you used both? I'm through about 3 chapters, and the ideas seem to mesh well enough so far. I was already using the tree setup for sequencing games anyway though, but the review of linear has been helpful, I'd recently fell into a rut of always trying to force multiple frames when they weren't there.

[Maye]

Some of Manhattan's methods are superior to Powerscore's (such as in/out and basic lin), but PS is a little more comprehensive. Doing both doesn't seem to screw people up too much

Have you used both? I'm through about 3 chapters, and the ideas seem to mesh well enough so far. I was already using the tree setup for sequencing games anyway though, but the review of linear has been helpful, I'd recently fell into a rut of always trying to force multiple frames when they weren't there.

i'm using both. it works well.

[NightmanCometh]

I did both books. Some of Manhattan's methods are superior- Manhattan's tree method is superior, and I like its open assignment methods as well over Powerscore's. But I don't think it would hurt to do both, as I did, and doing Powerscore first was helpful because they offer a much more diverse set of examples for each type that shows you how to adapt your thinking to different possibly weird setups (rather than Manhattan which only provides about 2 examples per section). If you finish the Powerscore first and study ALL the examples, you should be able to breeze through the Manhattan book in a matter of days, since the method may be different but the thinking process is largely the same. So all in all pretty complementary, and I recommend Powerscore first for the foundation and depth.

The only exception to this is Manhattan's In/out method, which is quite different from Powerscore's. I would learn both methods because there are instances where one is better than the other. For simpler In/Out (try the classic "birds in the forest" game), the Manhattan method is far superior because it leaves less room for error and is much quicker. But there are also In/out games in which internalizing the rules is important, and for these the Powerscore classic method of combining conditionals is better, since you will internalize the rules while looking for deductions in the beginning.

But I'd say over all, use Powerscore to get the foundation, and then use Manhattan to adapt some new techniques.

[PDaddy]

I find it fascinating that so many people never instinctively used the "tree method". I have been using it since I started doing games...well before i even looked at a study guide.

[CodyRuegger]

I find it fascinating that so many people never instinctively used the "tree method". I have been using it since I started doing games...well before i even looked at a study guide.

This.

I took two looks at how the PS bible approached pure sequencing games and said nah... I'm gonna do my own thing here. I don't think I've botched a sequencing problem since.

I'm also not a fan of how much excess stuff PS puts in the rules tables of the grouping games. I feel like it's easier to make inferences by just linking everything together in one happy conditional family.

The PS methods for the other game types are all pretty solid though, imo.