any of you guys actually use the manhattan logic chain? Forum

[flash21]

anyone actually use it?

[Sinatra]

Yes. I'm a fan of it and helps me organize in/out games. I was using PS method for a while until I got MLG and found the logic chain to be quite useful.

[Daily_Double]

.

[flash21]

Is the chain useful? Yes. Why is it useful? Because it emphasizes the relationships between the variables. Is it flawed? Yes. How is it flawed? Organization: it is difficult to apply, in an organized fashion, to all in-out games, specifically in-out games with multiple labels on variables.

For example, and this is off the top of my head on a phone with little attempt at precision, what if you have to assign members to a committee. The stimulus would say that the US is attempting to organize a task force for the IC (Intelligence Community, look it up), consisting of six members. The committee will be composed of people from three different organizations: the CIA, FBI, and NSA. The members of the CIA are G, H, and I, the members of the FBI are J, and K, the member of the NSA are L and M.

Now, of course some rules will apply to only one organization, however some rules will not. This makes setting up the Manhattan Chain very difficult. However, using basic conditions, with a block letter (C, I, N) above each variable (G, H, I, J, K, L and M), the game becomes much more organized, and thus much easier.

Long story short, basic conditionals are the way to go.

thanks DD i figured so

[ThetaX]

Keep it simple for games. Come test-day, the more complex your methods the bigger the chance of error.

[objection_your_honor]

I'm a big fan of the chain and I think you should learn it so that you have the option to incorporate it into your strategy if you so choose. It's just a different way of visually laying out each conditional and its contrapositive. You'll have to use traditional conditionals with the logic chain anyway since the chain can't represent certain conditional statements effectively. ("And" sufficient statements are difficult/impossible to represent using the chain.)

For me, the extra 20 seconds it takes to use the chain over other methods is usually worth it as I like to have all the contrapositives and inferences already on the page. The main criticism people seem to have is that having all the contrapositives is not necessary since it's easily visualized in your head.

Sometimes I make a small logic chain if a game has an in-out element. Other times I just write out conditionals the old fashioned way. (Haven't seen a pure in-out game in awhile, but the logic chain crushes those without mercy.) I'm a big fan of learning as many approaches as you can for handling LG. That way you can mix-and-match your way to -0.

[kennedy]

As a whole, I disliked the chain. But, I feel like it's useful to take a look at to maybe incorporate certain elements.

[bp shinners]

As a whole, I disliked the chain. But, I feel like it's useful to take a look at to maybe incorporate certain elements.

This. If you can take a look at a number of methods and figure out why they work, you'll be in much better shape. Each of the test prep companies have their methods because they believe they work best for the largest number of students. But the important thing to recognize is that they all work. If you can see why they all work, not only does that evince an understanding of the logic behind the test, but it will allow you to:
1) Figure out the one that works best for you on average;
2) Adapt to tough games on the actual exam in a high stress environment.

High scorers recognize that there are a large number of tools that work and understand them all so that they always have the appropriate one to use for the given situation.

[quigglyboom]

I'm a big fan.
As have been noted above, the chain kind of falls flat in games requiring a number of variables and permutations, but for simpler games the speed advantages are incredible.

[Manhattan LSAT Noah]

I tend to use it

This is definitely our most "controversial" diagram style. And, anyone who has read our book has seen our discussion of its strengths and weaknesses. We also recommend playing around with the "straight" version, i.e writing out the conditionals.

For me, even if the diagram doesn't have lots of connections--for most closed conditional grouping games, for example--I find the layout to be very helpful. Even if there aren't lots of bouncing around inferences, seeing all the elements in their different categories helps me organize the game, which is crucial for issues of numbers and categories.