Logic Games (Eliminating potential spaces for variables) Forum

[ltowns1]

Ok, I'm getting better at logic games, but I haven't turned that full corner yet. However, something kind of clicked today. It seems as if most of them (the games) are predicated on finding where variables cannot go. It seems as if once you figure out where most variables cannot go (which helps you to infer where they can) most logic games become very easy to handle? I know this is really oversimplifying the LG section, but it just seems like if you had to boil everything down, that's what most games come down to. The ability of eliminating where variables can and cannot be? Am I heading down the right road when I say this?

[JackelJ]

Yes, this can certainly help. Also, by finding things that can not go in a spot you can determine what can go in the spot.
Say you are ordering things A, B, C, and D. The first 2 rules say:
1. C cannot be first.
2. D comes before B.

Then you know that C can't go in the first spot obviously. And knowing that at least D has to come before B, B also can't be in the first spot. This only leaves two options for the first spot A and D. This is a simplification, but these kinds of deductions can usually get a few questions out of the way really fast.

[mist4bison]

.

[BrownieD]

I came to the same realization about where things can't go. I think it most importantly leads to inferences about where that piece or other pieces MUST go. Or those sneaky "can't go here" rules involving full groups (that aren't obvious if you aren't keeping track of filled spots/number distributions).

[giantswan]

You are definitely on the right track. As other people said, the first and last spots are important but honestly I believe you should write out as many assumptions as possible (in a reasonable amount of time) when you are diagramming your games. I have never regretted time spent on making assumptions and diagramming rules - usually when I struggle with a question it is because I did not spend enough time or pay enough attention when making assumptions.

[ITzNischay]

Let me preface this by saying I am currently horrendous at games so you should probably just ignore everything I have to say, but... I think that realization is more damaging than it is helpful. One of my biggest problems in games, of which there are many, is that I make too many "inferences". I spend an idiotic amount of time determining exactly where each element can and can't go, and ultimately it rarely has any benefit. My most significant improvement in games so far has come when I stopped doing that, or more accurately, when I stopped doing that obsessively. So, if you're anything like me, that epiphany is probably just going to lead you into trouble.

[giantswan]

Let me preface this by saying I am currently horrendous at games so you should probably just ignore everything I have to say, but... I think that realization is more damaging than it is helpful. One of my biggest problems in games, of which there are many, is that I make too many "inferences". I spend an idiotic amount of time determining exactly where each element can and can't go, and ultimately it rarely has any benefit. My most significant improvement in games so far has come when I stopped doing that, or more accurately, when I stopped doing that obsessively. So, if you're anything like me, that epiphany is probably just going to lead you into trouble.

I guess it probably varies for people - my strongest section was games and I am a big proponent of making all the inferences you can. I do some LSAT tutoring and I usually encourage people who can't make inferences in a timely manner during a PT to move on, but the ultimate goal is always to go back and practice enough to where making inferences is second nature.

[ITzNischay]

Let me preface this by saying I am currently horrendous at games so you should probably just ignore everything I have to say, but... I think that realization is more damaging than it is helpful. One of my biggest problems in games, of which there are many, is that I make too many "inferences". I spend an idiotic amount of time determining exactly where each element can and can't go, and ultimately it rarely has any benefit. My most significant improvement in games so far has come when I stopped doing that, or more accurately, when I stopped doing that obsessively. So, if you're anything like me, that epiphany is probably just going to lead you into trouble.

I guess it probably varies for people - my strongest section was games and I am a big proponent of making all the inferences you can. I do some LSAT tutoring and I usually encourage people who can't make inferences in a timely manner during a PT to move on, but the ultimate goal is always to go back and practice enough to where making inferences is second nature.

Any tips on how to more quickly learn what kind of inferences are good and what kind are bad? I guess I'd probably figure out the difference through sheer repetition if I fumble my way through it for long enough, but I imagine there is a smarter way to learn.

[giantswan]

Let me preface this by saying I am currently horrendous at games so you should probably just ignore everything I have to say, but... I think that realization is more damaging than it is helpful. One of my biggest problems in games, of which there are many, is that I make too many "inferences". I spend an idiotic amount of time determining exactly where each element can and can't go, and ultimately it rarely has any benefit. My most significant improvement in games so far has come when I stopped doing that, or more accurately, when I stopped doing that obsessively. So, if you're anything like me, that epiphany is probably just going to lead you into trouble.

I guess it probably varies for people - my strongest section was games and I am a big proponent of making all the inferences you can. I do some LSAT tutoring and I usually encourage people who can't make inferences in a timely manner during a PT to move on, but the ultimate goal is always to go back and practice enough to where making inferences is second nature.

Any tips on how to more quickly learn what kind of inferences are good and what kind are bad? I guess I'd probably figure out the difference through sheer repetition if I fumble my way through it for long enough, but I imagine there is a smarter way to learn.

I don't think there is such a thing as bad inferences to be honest. The repetition with games just helps you go through the inferences fast. The goal is to be able to get as many (ideally, all) of the inferences down as quickly as possible. When doing it timed I stop when I have to strain to find more, and if I missed any that I discover later I tack them on. I also don't write down "obvious" inferences, which I suppose can mean different things for different people. I don't think it's about figuring out which inferences are bad, just figuring out how to diagram them effectively. I've never had an issue where I felt I wasted time on "bad" inferences.

Yes, there are occasions where you not all the inferences you make end up being directly useful in that game - but predicting which ones would or would not be useful is a way more time-consuming task then just diagramming all of them. In the end most of them probably come in handy, and you familiarize yourself with the rules as you do them. I think for most people the problem isn't that they shouldn't do inferences - it's that they need to learn to do them properly/faster.

That's just my opinion though.

[ltowns1]

Let me preface this by saying I am currently horrendous at games so you should probably just ignore everything I have to say, but... I think that realization is more damaging than it is helpful. One of my biggest problems in games, of which there are many, is that I make too many "inferences". I spend an idiotic amount of time determining exactly where each element can and can't go, and ultimately it rarely has any benefit. My most significant improvement in games so far has come when I stopped doing that, or more accurately, when I stopped doing that obsessively. So, if you're anything like me, that epiphany is probably just going to lead you into trouble.

I guess it probably varies for people - my strongest section was games and I am a big proponent of making all the inferences you can. I do some LSAT tutoring and I usually encourage people who can't make inferences in a timely manner during a PT to move on, but the ultimate goal is always to go back and practice enough to where making inferences is second nature.

Any tips on how to more quickly learn what kind of inferences are good and what kind are bad? I guess I'd probably figure out the difference through sheer repetition if I fumble my way through it for long enough, but I imagine there is a smarter way to learn.

I don't think there is such a thing as bad inferences to be honest. The repetition with games just helps you go through the inferences fast. The goal is to be able to get as many (ideally, all) of the inferences down as quickly as possible. When doing it timed I stop when I have to strain to find more, and if I missed any that I discover later I tack them on. I also don't write down "obvious" inferences, which I suppose can mean different things for different people. I don't think it's about figuring out which inferences are bad, just figuring out how to diagram them effectively. I've never had an issue where I felt I wasted time on "bad" inferences.

Yes, there are occasions where you not all the inferences you make end up being directly useful in that game - but predicting which ones would or would not be useful is a way more time-consuming task then just diagramming all of them. In the end most of them probably come in handy, and you familiarize yourself with the rules as you do them. I think for most people the problem isn't that they shouldn't do inferences - it's that they need to learn to do them properly/faster.

That's just my opinion though.

I think you're right.

Games that I struggled with for a while have become second nature just by knowing what the inferences were.

[GreenTee]

Yeah, it's not possible for a valid inference to hinder your ability to solve a game. And it's obviously ideal to make as many inferences upfront as you possibly can.

I think people run into timing problems when they spend time notating MBF inferences that are patently obvious, and which you should be able to just "see" when you look at your representations of the rules and consider how they relate to the main diagram.

For example, if you have a PQ block in a five item simple sequencing game, it would be a waste of time to write out the inference that P can't be fifth and Q can't be first. It's right there in front of you. Just look at the block, and it should be obvious.

I'm not saying you should rely on visualization all or even most of the time, but once you drill enough and become really comfortable with how certain rules interact with base structures in diagramming, you'll find that you don't need to spend the time writing down all of the MBF inferences.