cahwc12 wrote:By simply writing rules and going to the questions, I consistently not only -0 games sections, but finish with 7-10 minutes leftover to double check most of my answers. This time is saved by not bothering to make non-obvious deductions that the game will elucidate as needed. I can look at the rules and pretty quickly see how they fit together, but I don't take the time to write out scenarios and make guesswork. Instead, I let the questions tell me exactly where those deductions are (and they always will), which is a guaranteed hit versus a more luck-based ("I hope I find it if I do this!") chance hit.
While I don't doubt your assertion, I must say that I think you'd be surprised how ineffective that method is for the vast majority of people out there. I've sat down with plenty of students, and when they write out the rules and go straight to the questions, they take about 3 minutes/question to get through it, and they don't have very solid accuracy.
And to completely use the same argumentative strategy against you, I consistently score -0 on games with 15-20 minutes left to double check everything by making deductions and drawing out scenarios before I go to the questions.
So, in short, I'm not saying that making these deductions is necessary to doing well and doing so quickly. However, for most people, it's a better way to go about the game than just going straight to the questions. Being able to do that tells me that you're naturally good at games, which allows you to make these deductions over and over again throughout the section without error. That's not the usual situation for people taking the LSAT.
You say, "I can look at the rules and pretty quickly see how they fit together" which is great for you, but most people in my classes would give you a dirty look. They don't see how they fit together, and they need to sit there and work with them for a few seconds before they can start to intuit how they work together.
I also think you don't understand what I mean by making deductions (as is the case with most people who use your method). There's no guesswork involved. There's no luck involved. And while the questions tell you where those deductions are, so do the rules - and using the rules to find them is much more efficient than testing out answer choices. The entire process of making deductions/scenarios takes people with whom I work maybe 45 seconds. If you come up with 1 major deduction, that's going to save you 2-3 minutes throughout the game. And if you don't make a deduction, then it's going to take you a whole lot less time than 45 seconds (maybe 15). Either way, you end up with a better understanding of the game. Most people who don't like making deductions/scenarios think that there's something more complex and less obvious going on than there actually is. All I'm trying to do is combine a few rules, or see if there's a rule that's so strong it limits me to 1-2 worlds.
As to the game you point out, I didn't quite follow everything you were saying, doing, but here's what I'd do:
H?:
IN:
________________
OUT:
1) G->J
~J->G
2) J->L
~L->~J
3) Write into setup
4) ~K->~F(h)
F(h)->K
5) ~M->~K(h)
K(h)->M
6)M(h) and L->O(h)
~O(h)->~M(h) or ~L
______________________________
DEDUCTIONS
I look for any term that shows up in more than 1 rule: here, that list is J, K, M, and L. I can combine the J rules. I can't combine the other ones because they also talk about being hired/are part of disjunctions.
G->J->L
~L->~J->~G
______________________________
SCENARIOS
I look for any rule that's strong enough to make scenarios. For a grouping game, that list is (1) Must Be Together/biconditionals, (2) at least one (~A->B) rules, (2a) the same term that shows up in the sufficient condition of two rules with opposite negation/team assignment (then I have a scenario where that player is IN/Team A, and one where he's OUT/Team B), and (3) weird rules (you know, the ones that say something like exactly two of ABC must be chosen). I don't have that here. Question time. And, glancing at them quickly, I think I've probably got everything because they're pretty much all conditional (one elimination - the first one - that you don't have to do any work whatsoever to do ever, and one absolute, but it's a could be true that's asking about group sizes) - if there were deductions, I'd expect more absolute questions.
So for this one, very little difference between what you'd get and what I'd get. However, this game doesn't really have any major deductions or good scenarios. If you look at a game like the scientist panel (botanists, zoologists, chemists), however, I'd argue that it's damn near impossible for most people without working ahead of time on some deductions. And ask the people who had the mauve dinosaur game how far they got with plug-and-chug.
Also, for most people, having the contrapositive written out will help - you have no idea how common it is to completely miss the application of, or misapply, the contrapositive without writing it out.
So, in short, this doesn't work for everyone, and some people will plug-and-chug quite well. However, from personal experience, most people don't have that talent. And I couldn't even begin to approach the speed with which I do games if I didn't spend the time up front to 'solve' the game before moving on.
-edit- For copying something down wrong.