Manhattan method for grouping in/out Forum

[JJ123]

I recently got the Manhattan book, and it has a very different way than what I'm used to. I learned basically A -> B, xB -> xA. This method uses two columns "In" and "Out", and arrows. Any thoughts on this method? Is it a good way to set up these problems?

[Darmody]

I just avoided their T Chart method. It seemed confusing to me. I preferred to just link the rules and make inferences and do the same for contrapositives.

[JJ123]

I just avoided their T Chart method. It seemed confusing to me. I preferred to just link the rules and make inferences and do the same for contrapositives.

Ok, so you'd end up with chains like if A-> B, C, xD, etc.

[objection_your_honor]

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... &p=7018850

[wtrc]

The T chart is so many arrows. Too many arrows. I like in out games and just use conditional chains. Don't know if it's objectively the "best" but it works for me.

[90convoy]

I like the method a lot. You just gotta make sure that you don't accidentally follow the arrows the opposite way. The whole drawing a circle on the end of the line irks me.

[elg]

7sage logic chain makes these much easier for me. Usually the rules make one long chain when you factor in contras

[ManoftheHour]

The Manhattan Logic Chain + T charts = amazing. I can finish any grouping game in 4 minutes. Before, grouping games took me probably 10+. Once you get used to it, it eliminates any uncertainty. The best part about the Logic Chain is that you do not have to scan your conditionals and their contrapositives. In games with a lot of conditionals, it'd be easy to miss one on accident. The Chain prevents that, at least for me.

[062914123]

.

[ManoftheHour]

The Manhattan Logic Chain + T charts = amazing. I can finish any grouping game in 4 minutes. Before, grouping games took me probably 10+. Once you get used to it, it eliminates any uncertainty. The best part about the Logic Chain is that you do not have to scan your conditionals and their contrapositives. In games with a lot of conditionals, it'd be easy to miss one on accident. The Chain prevents that, at least for me.

I thought I would HATE the chain because I learned LG using basic conditionals a la BP. but it ended up being super useful for any kind of game where you have to put people into 2 unstable groups with mostly conditional rules. It's esp helpful if you have loads and loads of conditional rules, because you never lose track of how things link together. It takes a lot of practice, but it helps me stay really consistent with in/out games. The only thing is that it takes a bit longer than simply writing out conditionals and CPs

Exactly. But even with that drawback, the setup process is extremely simple. When writing out a long conditional chain, there's a chance you'd miss a link. When setting up the LC, that's pretty much impossible.

The bird watching game (with the wrens) used to take me 8+ minutes. I found it confusing as fuck. But using the chain, I was able to do it in under 5. I was completely confident the entire time. Every question, I'd just make a T chart, plug in the new condition, and ta-da. Easy point. All the way.

[062914123]

.

[ManoftheHour]

The Manhattan Logic Chain + T charts = amazing. I can finish any grouping game in 4 minutes. Before, grouping games took me probably 10+. Once you get used to it, it eliminates any uncertainty. The best part about the Logic Chain is that you do not have to scan your conditionals and their contrapositives. In games with a lot of conditionals, it'd be easy to miss one on accident. The Chain prevents that, at least for me.

I thought I would HATE the chain because I learned LG using basic conditionals a la BP. but it ended up being super useful for any kind of game where you have to put people into 2 unstable groups with mostly conditional rules. It's esp helpful if you have loads and loads of conditional rules, because you never lose track of how things link together. It takes a lot of practice, but it helps me stay really consistent with in/out games. The only thing is that it takes a bit longer than simply writing out conditionals and CPs

Exactly. But even with that drawback, the setup process is extremely simple. When writing out a long conditional chain, there's a chance you'd miss a link. When setting up the LC, that's pretty much impossible.

The bird watching game (with the wrens) used to take me 8+ minutes. I found it confusing as fuck. But using the chain, I was able to do it in under 5. I was completely confident the entire time. Every question, I'd just make a T chart, plug in the new condition, and ta-da. Easy point. All the way.

I felt exactly the same way about the bird game. Everyone was going on about how hard it was, but the chain got it done in 5 minutes. It also demolished the hired/interviewed game and that awful game from 59 about the 2 statistics classes

the only thing is that in the 60s, there are hardly any games where you can use the chain ): i'm afraid i've put in all the work to learn it for nothing

Nah. Just wait until PT 70 and/or PT 71. It'll pay off.

[062914123]

.

[wtrc]

Nah. Just wait until PT 70 and/or PT 71. It'll pay off.

You know, I kind of wish there's a complex in and out in 70 so that the curve will be lenient and the other 3 games will be fairly easy e.g. 59

I drilled in and out because I expected one in June on 69. Didn't happen. It's coming on 70. It's coming.

[neprep]

Nah. Just wait until PT 70 and/or PT 71. It'll pay off.

You know, I kind of wish there's a complex in and out in 70 so that the curve will be lenient and the other 3 games will be fairly easy e.g. 59

I drilled in and out because I expected one in June on 69. Didn't happen. It's coming on 70. It's coming.

Since I'm taking the test in Asia, I can't even make general predictions like that. I do know that I'm going to see an unused February exam, though. Probably between two published PTs in the 60s or late 50s.

I'm going to get a game about 10 different pieces of stained glass each bearing an image of a different colored dinosaur to be dropped off at different stops on a bus route by a very racially diverse group of art contractors. Then I'll log on to TLS and see that everyone else had 4 relative ordering games in the U.S. version of the test.

[ManoftheHour]

stained glass

F#$% that shit man.

[JJ123]

I think I'm going to learn it. Writing out all of the conditions takes WAY too long on complicated games, and it takes too long to apply it.

[Jeffort]

I think I'm going to learn it. Writing out all of the conditions takes WAY too long on complicated games, and it takes too long to apply it.

You still have to write out all the conditionals to make the chart as well as organize them into the chart, so it is not less work to create. It is just a different way to organize the conditional rules.

[JJ123]

I think I'm going to learn it. Writing out all of the conditions takes WAY too long on complicated games, and it takes too long to apply it.

You still have to write out all the conditionals to make the chart as well as organize them into the chart, so it is not less work to create. It is just a different way to organize the conditional rules.

I've just been making the chart, without writing out all of the conditions. Is that not how I'm supposed to do it? Because writing all of that out THEN making the chart makes no sense to me.

[90convoy]

I think I'm going to learn it. Writing out all of the conditions takes WAY too long on complicated games, and it takes too long to apply it.

You still have to write out all the conditionals to make the chart as well as organize them into the chart, so it is not less work to create. It is just a different way to organize the conditional rules.

I've just been making the chart, without writing out all of the conditions. Is that not how I'm supposed to do it? Because writing all of that out THEN making the chart makes no sense to me.

Don't write the conditions unless they are complicated ones that can't be diagramed in the chart. Like conditional statements with or in the outcome/ and in the trigger

[lawschool22]

I think I'm going to learn it. Writing out all of the conditions takes WAY too long on complicated games, and it takes too long to apply it.

You still have to write out all the conditionals to make the chart as well as organize them into the chart, so it is not less work to create. It is just a different way to organize the conditional rules.

I've just been making the chart, without writing out all of the conditions. Is that not how I'm supposed to do it? Because writing all of that out THEN making the chart makes no sense to me.

Don't write the conditions unless they are complicated ones that can't be diagramed in the chart. Like conditional statements with or in the outcome/ and in the trigger

Even these can be diagrammed in the chart, but you still must be comfortable with conditional logic, because on the other side of the chart you must diagram the contrapositive. For instance, if a rule says "If A and B are in, then X is out", you would put A+B on the in side, with an arrow to X on the out side. Then put A/B on the Out side, and an arrow going from X on the In side to the A/B on the out side. The key is just when mapping "and's" & "Or's" with the chart, you must always put the contrapositive on the other side of the chart.

A great (and challenging) example of this is the New/Used CD game. I can't remember which PT, but it's the one with New/Used Jazz, Rock, Soul, Pop, and Opera(?). If you can master this game using the Manhattan chart, you can likely handle most in/out games using the chart.

[ManoftheHour]

A great (and challenging) example of this is the New/Used CD game. I can't remember which PT, but it's the one with New/Used Jazz, Rock, Soul, Pop, and Opera(?). If you can master this game using the Manhattan chart, you can likely handle most in/out games using the chart.

Fuck that game. lol. But agreed. I actually used the Manhattan chain for that one and it worked out fine.

[lawschool22]

A great (and challenging) example of this is the New/Used CD game. I can't remember which PT, but it's the one with New/Used Jazz, Rock, Soul, Pop, and Opera(?). If you can master this game using the Manhattan chart, you can likely handle most in/out games using the chart.

Fuck that game. lol. But agreed. I actually used the Manhattan chain for that one and it worked out fine.

Haha my sentiments exactly. But with the logic chain it isn't too bad. You just have to be VERY careful in setting it up and reading it. Also, the questions in that game require a detailed and very focused reading as well.

[ManoftheHour]

A great (and challenging) example of this is the New/Used CD game. I can't remember which PT, but it's the one with New/Used Jazz, Rock, Soul, Pop, and Opera(?). If you can master this game using the Manhattan chart, you can likely handle most in/out games using the chart.

Fuck that game. lol. But agreed. I actually used the Manhattan chain for that one and it worked out fine.

Haha my sentiments exactly. But with the logic chain it isn't too bad. You just have to be VERY careful in setting it up and reading it. Also, the questions in that game require a detailed and very focused reading as well.

Yeah. It was really weird setting it up with the "and" and "ors" but they didn't really interfere with the logic flow of the chain. I think the key thing in that game (in term of the chain) was understanding that used pop was always on sale, which means that anytime new pop is on sale, both pops are on sale...which triggers a some other shit.

[lawschool22]

...which triggers a some other shit.

Just about sums up in/outs.