Top Law Schools

I can not remember the PT it came from, but in the LG bible one of the grouping games is about birds in the forest or not. No matter how many times I work that game, I still screw it up.
Grouping games are my weakest link. I have the diagraming of the rules and the contrapositives down, but I am still only getting 80% if the inferences, especially on this game.
I FEAR that I will get a game like this on the 10/1 LSAT.

flounder wrote:I have the diagraming of the rules and the contrapositives down, but I am still only getting 80% if the inferences

So don't make inferences. In this type of game there usually isn't any you wouldn't stumble across anyway by just going through the rules.

Make a blank T-chart labeled in and out and write all the conditionals and contrapositives in a row off to the side:

K --> L
!L --> !K
M --> !N
N --> !M
!N --> O
!O --> N
...and so on.

No deductions, no "chaining," no funny business. Just a list of rules.

Now start with the specific/local questions. Whenever you're given a hypothetical (e.g., "If M is in the forest..."), put it in your chart.
_____
M |

Then run down the LEFT side of the list until you see that condition (here it's in our third statement), and add what's on the right side (N is out) to your chart.
_____
M | N

Continue down the list to make sure there are no more that match. Then take the new fact you wrote down (N is out) and look for it down the left side (here, the fifth one), and write down what's on the right (O is in).
________
O M | N

Rinse, repeat. When you run out of facts, answer the question.

Once you've done this you've got a lot of sample material to work with for general/global questions.

These type of "In/Out" games gave me a ton of trouble when I initially came across them, too. However, after completing the Binary Grouping Game chapter of the Manhattan LG Study Guide they became a lot easier. I love using the LGB for most things, but I do think that their method for "In/Out" games is too complex. I believe the Manhattan LG Study Guide is about $40, and would be well worth it for you to pick it up to supplement the LGB. That $40 would be very well spent if one of these "In/Out games shows up on your test. With all that being said, from what I gather (from my own experience and through what I perceive to be the consensus here on TLS) is that one of the keys to being good at logic games is to be flexible in your approach. This often means combining methods, or taking methods from different places. I'm sure others could back me on the value of using both the LGB and Manhattan LG Study Guide. Hope this helps, and btw if you have already used the LGB you can quickly move through the Manhattan LG Study Guide.

I like that idea a lot better. I am going to try it the next time I tackle that.

I think the other part that confuses me is the questions are often witten "not in the forest" instead of "in the forest"

You think it is worth it? I have about 6 weeks until the test.

flounder wrote:You think it is worth it? I have about 6 weeks until the test.

If this is in response to picking up the Manhattan guide, yes. Won't take you long to go through, and if need be you can go over only the chapters that seem relevant to your weaknesses. An afternoon of work could take a lot of stress off about these types of games. Worth a shot.

I will check it out.
Thanks!

flounder wrote:I think the other part that confuses me is the questions are often witten "not in the forest" instead of "in the forest"

When it uses terms like "not," it should be easy because your conditional symbol also uses "not." (!N or ~N)

Where it gets tricky is when your two categories are like "lunch" and "dinner." These work exactly the same as in/out, you just have to remember "dinner" really means "not lunch."

Any other suggestions people can give me will be much appreciated!

.

See if this explanation helps

http://www.griffonprep.com/Birdgamesolution.html

Manhattan's in/out method is far superior to PS's