Top Law Schools

I'm working through the powerscore LG bible and am wondering how some of you quickly spot and label the "randoms" for a game? At first I wasn't labeling them because it was just taking too much time for me to look through all rules to see what variables were used and what weren't, but I've been burned too many times now on practice LG because I didn't identify the random.

Anyone have any recommendations for a super quick process to label the randoms?

Like, floaters? Pieces that aren't affected by any of the rules? I think I just circled them

How are you setting it up? I just kind of had it as a result of how I diagrammed the rules.

Post removed.

Typically after writing out the rules I rewrite the first letter of every variable in the game, setting off any randoms to the side. I also sometimes draw a double arrow to note symetrical variables (i.e., what is true for one must be true for the other.)

I would always initially write out the letters of all the variables and as I read through each rule and diagrammed it would cross out the affected variable (lightly though, so you can still see/use it). Then at the end you already have your floaters, and I'd put a star above them.

It doesn't matter if you do it this way, but I think it's pretty essential to know your floaters going into the questions.

Clemenceau wrote:Like, floaters? Pieces that aren't affected by any of the rules? I think I just circled them

^^ Me too

jetsfan1 wrote:I would always initially write out the letters of all the variables and as I read through each rule and diagrammed it would cross out the affected variable (lightly though, so you can still see/use it).

I do something similar, although I put a dot above of the letters as they come up in the rules. If you have no dots, you're a stray, and I circle you. If you show up in more than one rule, you get more than one dot. This also lets me see which elements are very restricted and likely to lead to inferences, as they'll have multiple dots.

Manhattan Prep Matt wrote:

jetsfan1 wrote:I would always initially write out the letters of all the variables and as I read through each rule and diagrammed it would cross out the affected variable (lightly though, so you can still see/use it).

I do something similar, although I put a dot above of the letters as they come up in the rules. If you have no dots, you're a stray, and I circle you. If you show up in more than one rule, you get more than one dot. This also lets me see which elements are very restricted and likely to lead to inferences, as they'll have multiple dots.

Ooooo I like that double dot for double rule variables. I would always just keep them in my head and it worked to a certain extent but this seems much better.

Manhattan Prep Matt wrote:

jetsfan1 wrote:I would always initially write out the letters of all the variables and as I read through each rule and diagrammed it would cross out the affected variable (lightly though, so you can still see/use it).

I do something similar, although I put a dot above of the letters as they come up in the rules. If you have no dots, you're a stray, and I circle you. If you show up in more than one rule, you get more than one dot. This also lets me see which elements are very restricted and likely to lead to inferences, as they'll have multiple dots.

Oh wow I like this method! Thumbs up