Top Law Schools

Hi,

Grouping games have been giving me all sorts of issues since I started studying and practicing them. It seems like the more I study and try to understand them, the more confused they become. I have studied the Powerscore methods as well as some of Steve Schwartz's stuff. The Powerscore methods seem overly complicated and sometimes it is difficult to keep track of all the conditional reasoning drawings going on during the games. Schwartz's stuff says not to do the Powerscore way and instead to do it his way, but he only explains his method in one or two very simple games and no more, so when questions arise on the more complicated games he doesn't explain, I am left holding the bag.

So my question to the board is does anybody recommend a service or something of that nature that they though had some easier way to explain the grouping games?

I am specifically running into issues with these games: PT36, G1; PT31, G2; PT35, G1

Any insight/help would be much appreciated!

Thanks

lsatilt wrote:Hi,



So my question to the board is does anybody recommend a service or something of that nature that they though had some easier way to explain the grouping games?

Down the hall, third door on your left:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=161914

Thanks. Seriously my head is spinning, need to take a break and start a new topic tomorrow. UGH

Hey - I'm unfamiliar with both Powerscore and Schwartz' methodologies, but my guess is that you are overcomplicating it.

PT 31 G2: A straightforward conditional game. 1) Set it up as an "In/Out" game with 2 columns, one for "In" (on Sale) and one for "Out" (Not on sale).
2) Your elements are JOPRS (new) and joprs (used).
3) Symbolize your clues

P --> S,s
~S/~s --> ~P

J,j --> ~R, ~r
R/r --> ~J /~j

~J, ~j --> P
~P --> J/j

R/r --> ~S, ~s
S/s --> ~R, ~r

4) Do not (never ever) link conditional statements to form new clues. It's a waste of time. These connections are OK to notice, but there is no reason to write them out, as they give you no new info.

5) Now you're ready to do the questions.

PT 35 Game 1: Slightly harder as there are two characteristics of each element that we have to keep track of (exp. vs inexp. and geo vs. radio). Still doable though.

1) Set up as basic in/out diagram. 4 in (selected) and 4 out (not selected).

2) List your elements as follows. For ONE characteristic, I'll use upper case and lower case letters, along with symbols to note the category.

Experienced: *: FJKL
Inexperienced: ^: mnpt

So at this point, I know 2 *'s in and 2 ^'s in.

To illustrate the SECOND characteristic, I'll use subscripts, so now my elements look like this.

Experienced: *: F(g), J(r), K(r), L(r)
Inexperienced: ^: m(g), n(r), p(g), t(g)

I also know that I'll need 2 r's and 2 g's in.

Deduction: F and n always together, as F is the only experienced g, so must be paired with the only inexperienced r.

Final Clue: ~p(g) --> L(r), ~L(r) --> p(g)
Now you're ready for the questions.

PT 36 G1 is the simplest of all.

Basic In/Out diagram.

Symbolize clues

K --> ~P
P --> ~K

~T --> K
~K --> T

O --> P, W
~P/~W --> ~O

W --> F/T
~F,~T -> ~W

As I said, it's a waste of time to link conditionals together. (OK to notice, but no use drawing out rules that essentially give you nothing new.)

Now grind out the questions.

Bottom line: Did this approach to setting the games up solve your problems, or do have problems with the particular questions?

SanDiegoJake wrote:PT 35 Game 1: Slightly harder as there are two characteristics of each element that we have to keep track of (exp. vs inexp. and geo vs. radio). Still doable though.

1) Set up as basic in/out diagram. 4 in (selected) and 4 out (not selected).

2) List your elements as follows. For ONE characteristic, I'll use upper case and lower case letters, along with symbols to note the category.

Experienced: *: FJKL
Inexperienced: ^: mnpt

So at this point, I know 2 *'s in and 2 ^'s in. I

To illustrate the SECOND characteristic, I'll use subscripts, so now my elements look like this.

Experienced: *: F(g), J(r), K(r), L(r)
Inexperienced: ^: m(g), n(r), p(g), t(g)

I also know that I'll need 2 r's and 2 g's in.

Deduction: F and n always together, as F is the only

experienced g, so must be paired with the only i. nexperienced r.

Final Clue: ~p(g) --> L(r), ~L(r) --> p(g)
Now you're ready for the questions.

For this game I found it helpful to draw a diagram like 4 square, separated into quadrants. Then put each element in it 's quadrant. It makes thus game cake.

SanDiegoJake wrote: 4) Do not (never ever) link conditional statements to form new clues. It's a waste of time. These connections are OK to notice, but there is no reason to write them out, as they give you no new info.

I completely disagree with that statement. If you can make an ordering chain linking several rules together, I would definitely do it; you'll quickly blow through a lot of questions that way. It also might help you figure out a new 'or' relationship or a 'but not both' relationship you didn't have before.

If you can keep track of all that in your head without writing it out, more power to you. But I would recommend to anyone else that they write these chains out.