Toughest Logic Games Strategies for 170+ Forum

[SunDevil14]

This thread is geared towards people that can routinely complete LG sections with -0 or -1 and often have time to spare at the end. Additionally this thread is meant to both share and inform others about different strategies and approaches. Feel free to offer constructive criticism and add your own strategies. Although, strategies are likely useful to a wider audience.

Usually it is only once in a handful of PT or LG sections that you an encounter a extremely tough game, though such games can be extremely frustrating for those aim for a perfect or near perfect score on LG. Sometimes you can manage to brute force you way through and get all the questions right while taking a large amount of time. Other times such games leave you stumped, and you just have to give it your best guess after trying to work them out. What counts as an extreme tough game will be subjective. Although some example in recent memory of games I found extremely tough were:

PT 27 Game 2: Lizards and Snakes
PT 40 Game 3: Zephyr Airlines
PT 57 Game 3: Dinosaurs
PT 72 Game 4: Summit Company

Fortunately, for test takers strong in LG time completing in time is rarely an issue (especially barring an extremely tough game). Furthermore, strong LG performers can often recognize a very tough/unusual and time consuming game after reading setup and rules. So, though at times these very tough games will not be skipped and left for last, I am operating under the assumption that strong LG performers will more often than not leave such games for last.

Timing Strategies

>4 minutes: Employ your pure guessing strategy, if closer to 4 minutes, then perhaps attempt the first (easiest question) after jotting down the rules and then guess for the remaining questions.

4-6 minutes: With such little time left, drawing multiple and elaborate diagrams is out of the question. I believe that best practice is to read the set up and rules, draw one or at most 2 simple diagrams, and then try to go after the low hanging fruit. Almost always, the first question of a games set Involves an acceptable situation, which can be answered correctly by referring to the rules. A large degree of understanding involving the game and inferences is usually not required. From this point you now have one acceptable situation, your simplistic diagram, and the rules written and represented. You want to scan the remaining questions for ones that yield a quick answer. Focus on the acceptable situation, and really specific/restrictive rules. Occasionally correct answer to a question can be fond be relying on these 2 resources. If none can be easily found, then at this point you likely have a few minutes left and are going to play what I call the "educated guessing" game. I like to start with hypothetical questions. Make a quick diagram then cross off the obvious wrong answers, hopefully the right answers appears. If you have the time and can figure it out then, eliminate the most attractive wrong answers and proceed. Otherwise make a guess from the most attractive remaining answers. At this point, you have your simplistic initial simplistic diagram, the acceptable situation, the rules, and one or two simplistic hypothetical diagrams. Use these resources and the answers to previous questions to eliminate clearly wrong answer choices for the remaining question, and then guess between the 2-3 answer choices still available. The closer you are to six minutes, the more simplistic diagrams and hypothetical diagrams you will be able to make from which you can use to make educated guesses. The closer you are to 4 minutes, the more you will be going after low hanging fruit with minimal diagram assistance.

6-8 minutes: Given this much amount of time, you can draw one or two detailed diagrams after reading the rules. Or perhaps one detailed and a few simple diagrams. If you happen to be fortunate and something clicks while diagramming then there is a chance that you can answer most if not all of the questions using your normal approach. Otherwise, you are still left with enough time to work out a few problems and still be able to complete the section. Same as above, attempt the first questions (acceptable situation), check for questions that can be easily answered just using the rules and answer to question one, then go after the hypothetical. Ideally you will be able to fully work out the one to two hypothetical along with the acceptable situation. At this point check the clock, if time permits work out another question. If not, then use the educated guessing strategy in addition to the previous knowledge you have acquired.

8-10 minutes: You should have enough time to use your normal approach. If you waste a lot of time unsuccessfully drawing an accurate and informative diagram, then fall back to the 6-8 minute strategy.

10+ minutes You have more than enough time to use your normal approach. Furthermore, if you failed to draw an accurate and informative diagram on your first time around, then it is often the case that you will have enough time to come up with a second diagram that is hopefully better than the first. Alternatively if you a completed stumped as how to best represent the game in diagram form, then another strategy is to draw a very simple diagram and then brute force the questions, making diagrams as you go and picking up inferences. Although this can be incredibly time consuming, if you find yourself with 13, 14, or 15 minutes, than it can be viable so long as you decide to use the approach from the onset of the game. If all else fails revert back to the 6-8 minute strategy after you have used up several minutes and are still clueless about representing the game in a diagram.

I would greatly appreciate thoughts, suggestions, and criticism. I am strong games performer, and have spent a lot of time improving my games skills. That said I am not the best, and still believe that I have room to improve.

[lumberjack23]

Great post! I would also like to know how to practice for questions like the virus one, the ones that I don't know where to begin.

[tskela]

i'm hopefully done with logic games forever but just wanted to pop in and say snakes and lizards can go straight to hell.

[SunDevil14]

Great post! I would also like to know how to practice for questions like the virus one, the ones that I don't know where to begin.

Thanks, appreciate. I am unfamiliar with the virus game. But usually what I do with the really tough ones is:

1. Blind Review
2. Check answers, and then try to reverse engineer the diagram for the the correct and incorrect answers
3. Watch the video explanation on 7sage
4. Attempt to see if I can find a better/equitable way than 7sage to figuring out the game (subjective to you personal style and strengths)
5. A few weeks latter attempt the game again under timed conditions

The good news is that there are only so many ways to construct the logic games, so mastering the most difficult games will give you insights into other difficult games that are similar. The bad news is that some games might be so unusual that even with a great deal of studying you still lack the necessary exposure to master it on the first attempt.

[SunDevil14]

i'm hopefully done with logic games forever but just wanted to pop in and say snakes and lizards can go straight to hell.

Lmao, was actually able to get -0 on that game just took nearly 13 minutes to complete. I decided to double stack a double layer sequencing diagram. As far as I am concerned Dinosaurs can suck it! I am glad they are extinct.

[tskela]

i'm hopefully done with logic games forever but just wanted to pop in and say snakes and lizards can go straight to hell.

Lmao, was actually able to get -0 on that game just took nearly 13 minutes to complete. I decided to double stack a double layer sequencing diagram. As far as I am concerned Dinosaurs can suck it! I am glad they are extinct.

I actually enjoyed dinosaurs! Especially the second, third, fourth, etc time I did it after I had learned to circle/square/triangle game pieces to represent different colors. Being able to put a circle as a placeholder for mauve in the "in" group for example was really helpful for me

I'm just shit at games with a numerical distribution component. me every 30 seconds of snakes/lizards: "HOW MANY FUCKING SNAKES DO I HAVE LEFT"

[34iplaw]

Good overall I think but even three minutes is a lot. It's nearly 10% of your time. Hell, I finished the first game in September in under three minutes... quite possibly the easiest LG I've ever seen other than maybe that CG FI relative ordering one that is entirely determined except H/FI. I'd also just say that even at four minutes try to think about the game. The weird games are usually quite quick once you get them. For example the virus, I think most people four minutes that are -0/-1 barring weird games that the first two questions took maybe a minute if you just thought about the rules.

[SunDevil14]

Good overall I think but even three minutes is a lot. It's nearly 10% of your time. Hell, I finished the first game in September in under three minutes... quite possibly the easiest LG I've ever seen other than maybe that CG FI relative ordering one that is entirely determined except H/FI. I'd also just say that even at four minutes try to think about the game. The weird games are usually quite quick once you get them. For example the virus, I think most people four minutes that are -0/-1 barring weird games that the first two questions took maybe a minute if you just thought about the rules.

I hear you. I have completed a lot of games in 5 minutes or less. I am more specifically talking about games that you read the set up and are like WTF before you even get to the rules. Then you get to the rules, read them, are like still like WTF. Once again there is going to be a great deal of subjectivity. Furthermore there is definitely situations where you are thinking WTF after reading the set up and or rules, and once you hit the questions something clicks and the game becomes a lot easier than you previously thought. Also, the time constraints I listed above are subjective. What one person considers not enough time can be another persons just enough or more than enough time. Additionally, I believe that not all top tier game performers are alike. One may be good at adapting a figuring out odd games quickly while others talents may be an extreme mastery of the usual games, and still there are those who can figure out some games with little to no diagramming by just reading the rules. I tend to fall in the latter two categories, while at times I struggle on the first I listed.

[34iplaw]

Good overall I think but even three minutes is a lot. It's nearly 10% of your time. Hell, I finished the first game in September in under three minutes... quite possibly the easiest LG I've ever seen other than maybe that CG FI relative ordering one that is entirely determined except H/FI. I'd also just say that even at four minutes try to think about the game. The weird games are usually quite quick once you get them. For example the virus, I think most people four minutes that are -0/-1 barring weird games that the first two questions took maybe a minute if you just thought about the rules.

I hear you. I have completed a lot of games in 5 minutes or less. I am more specifically talking about games that you read the set up and are like WTF before you even get to the rules. Then you get to the rules, read them, are like still like WTF. Once again there is going to be a great deal of subjectivity. Furthermore there is definitely situations where you are thinking WTF after reading the set up and or rules, and once you hit the questions something clicks and the game becomes a lot easier than you previously thought. Also, the time constraints I listed above are subjective. What one person considers not enough time can be another persons just enough or more than enough time. Additionally, I believe that not all top tier game performers are alike. One may be good at adapting a figuring out odd games quickly while others talents may be an extreme mastery of the usual games, and still there are those who can figure out some games with little to no diagramming by just reading the rules. I tend to fall in the latter two categories, while at times I struggle on the first I listed.

That's all fair. I may have misinterpreted your remarks and thought that you were sort diminishing the amount of time four minutes really is on the LSAT. In regards to games, that's definitely true. For me, some grouping games just take forever. Virus game and that weird archaeology and handoff one or whatever I finished both very quickly. The handoff one I did in like five minutes the first time I saw it and got -0... but I, without question, always take 25% longer on grouping games... then again, that's because I largely rule drive and rarely diagram very much.

[SunDevil14]

Good overall I think but even three minutes is a lot. It's nearly 10% of your time. Hell, I finished the first game in September in under three minutes... quite possibly the easiest LG I've ever seen other than maybe that CG FI relative ordering one that is entirely determined except H/FI. I'd also just say that even at four minutes try to think about the game. The weird games are usually quite quick once you get them. For example the virus, I think most people four minutes that are -0/-1 barring weird games that the first two questions took maybe a minute if you just thought about the rules.

I hear you. I have completed a lot of games in 5 minutes or less. I am more specifically talking about games that you read the set up and are like WTF before you even get to the rules. Then you get to the rules, read them, are like still like WTF. Once again there is going to be a great deal of subjectivity. Furthermore there is definitely situations where you are thinking WTF after reading the set up and or rules, and once you hit the questions something clicks and the game becomes a lot easier than you previously thought. Also, the time constraints I listed above are subjective. What one person considers not enough time can be another persons just enough or more than enough time. Additionally, I believe that not all top tier game performers are alike. One may be good at adapting a figuring out odd games quickly while others talents may be an extreme mastery of the usual games, and still there are those who can figure out some games with little to no diagramming by just reading the rules. I tend to fall in the latter two categories, while at times I struggle on the first I listed.

That's all fair. I may have misinterpreted your remarks and thought that you were sort diminishing the amount of time four minutes really is on the LSAT. In regards to games, that's definitely true. For me, some grouping games just take forever. Virus game and that weird archaeology and handoff one or whatever I finished both very quickly. The handoff one I did in like five minutes the first time I saw it and got -0... but I, without question, always take 25% longer on grouping games... then again, that's because I largely rule drive and rarely diagram very much.

My strength is in formal logic and jamming inferences. Most of the time I can knock out all the possible worlds (possible scenarios) quickly and with a few diagrams while juggling multiple rules in my head. From there, I often breeze through the questions. I also share the strength of rule driving. I take more time on "under-funded" and "over-loaded" games when you cannot more or less solve the game upfront and have to in a sense solve the game as you complete the problems. Also games that don't involve inferences in the "typical formal logic sense." (i.e. more visual references that require extensive diagramming). Pattern games are hit or miss.

[kindofcanuck]

I actually enjoyed dinosaurs! Especially the second, third, fourth, etc time I did it after I had learned to circle/square/triangle game pieces to represent different colors. Being able to put a circle as a placeholder for mauve in the "in" group for example was really helpful for me

Umm. Why not just use M? That's why the colours all had different letters.

That game you knew you had five dinosaurs, two were M, and the Red S was included.

? ? S
_ _ _ _ _
M M R