Logic games setups... how many minutes??? Forum

[hyunseoki]

How long does it take (on average) for you to setup a logic game? Do some game sets take longer than others?

[Unitas]

It all depends on the games.. Some take no time, while others take what seems like forever.. Don't try and set an arbitrary time on setup. Otherwise you are destined to fail.

Usually though, three of them take 3 or so minutes and one takes a minute or so. Usually a order game.
Then again I haven't timed since before I started doing complete pts... I don't check my watch on setups generally.

[GeePee]

I don't waste any time drawing extensive diagrams or making pretty setups. Just a 30 second basic diagram with noted rules, preferably as you eliminate answers from the first global question, is sufficient for every logic game.

For the people that I've tried to teach, getting them to write down less to start and just dive into the questions with a minimalist approach to diagramming has yielded remarkable results. I would recommend this to anyone who is doubting their diagramming skills at all. People seem to doubt their brain power when it comes to LG... trust me, it is easier to remember the LG rules with basic notes than it is to keep track of points of view and major details in RC passages. Yet most people seem to see no problem in doing the latter and are scared to death of the former until they learn the test.

[APimpNamedSlickback]

I don't waste any time drawing extensive diagrams or making pretty setups. Just a 30 second basic diagram with noted rules, preferably as you eliminate answers from the first global question, is sufficient for every logic game.

For the people that I've tried to teach, getting them to write down less to start and just dive into the questions with a minimalist approach to diagramming has yielded remarkable results. I would recommend this to anyone who is doubting their diagramming skills at all. People seem to doubt their brain power when it comes to LG... trust me, it is easier to remember the LG rules with basic notes than it is to keep track of points of view and major details in RC passages. Yet most people seem to see no problem in doing the latter and are scared to death of the former until they learn the test.

.

[gatorlion]

I don't waste any time drawing extensive diagrams or making pretty setups. Just a 30 second basic diagram with noted rules, preferably as you eliminate answers from the first global question, is sufficient for every logic game.

For the people that I've tried to teach, getting them to write down less to start and just dive into the questions with a minimalist approach to diagramming has yielded remarkable results. I would recommend this to anyone who is doubting their diagramming skills at all. People seem to doubt their brain power when it comes to LG... trust me, it is easier to remember the LG rules with basic notes than it is to keep track of points of view and major details in RC passages. Yet most people seem to see no problem in doing the latter and are scared to death of the former until they learn the test.

This is exactly the opposite of what I was taught. It's absolutely not easier to remember all of the rules, especially when their contrapositives prove messy. I guess time will tell the victor...

[GeePee]

I don't waste any time drawing extensive diagrams or making pretty setups. Just a 30 second basic diagram with noted rules, preferably as you eliminate answers from the first global question, is sufficient for every logic game.

For the people that I've tried to teach, getting them to write down less to start and just dive into the questions with a minimalist approach to diagramming has yielded remarkable results. I would recommend this to anyone who is doubting their diagramming skills at all. People seem to doubt their brain power when it comes to LG... trust me, it is easier to remember the LG rules with basic notes than it is to keep track of points of view and major details in RC passages. Yet most people seem to see no problem in doing the latter and are scared to death of the former until they learn the test.

hmmmm....this sounds like a fantastic way to get raped on those games that require one very tricky inference at the very beginning of the game. The credited response, as an above poster suggested, is that the amount of time you'll need on the front end will be almost entirely a function of the game.

I think you'll realize you need an additional inference when you can't answer the questions...

But for 99% of games, people that are poor at LG's spend too much time diagramming. Oh, and very few games REQUIRE a "tricky" reference after having taken almost all of the PT's.

[gatorlion]

I don't waste any time drawing extensive diagrams or making pretty setups. Just a 30 second basic diagram with noted rules, preferably as you eliminate answers from the first global question, is sufficient for every logic game.

For the people that I've tried to teach, getting them to write down less to start and just dive into the questions with a minimalist approach to diagramming has yielded remarkable results. I would recommend this to anyone who is doubting their diagramming skills at all. People seem to doubt their brain power when it comes to LG... trust me, it is easier to remember the LG rules with basic notes than it is to keep track of points of view and major details in RC passages. Yet most people seem to see no problem in doing the latter and are scared to death of the former until they learn the test.

hmmmm....this sounds like a fantastic way to get raped on those games that require one very tricky inference at the very beginning of the game. The credited response, as an above poster suggested, is that the amount of time you'll need on the front end will be almost entirely a function of the game.

I think you'll realize you need an additional inference when you can't answer the questions...

But for 99% of games, people that are poor at LG's spend too much time diagramming. Oh, and very few games REQUIRE a "tricky" reference after having taken almost all of the PT's.

I'd rather not let it get to that point, especially on test day. Diagram it out first. It doesn't take long, but staring blankly at a question after failing to find all the deductions is a poor game plan.

[GeePee]

I don't waste any time drawing extensive diagrams or making pretty setups. Just a 30 second basic diagram with noted rules, preferably as you eliminate answers from the first global question, is sufficient for every logic game.

For the people that I've tried to teach, getting them to write down less to start and just dive into the questions with a minimalist approach to diagramming has yielded remarkable results. I would recommend this to anyone who is doubting their diagramming skills at all. People seem to doubt their brain power when it comes to LG... trust me, it is easier to remember the LG rules with basic notes than it is to keep track of points of view and major details in RC passages. Yet most people seem to see no problem in doing the latter and are scared to death of the former until they learn the test.

This is exactly the opposite of what I was taught. It's absolutely not easier to remember all of the rules, especially when their contrapositives prove messy. I guess time will tell the victor...

Maybe I'm biased as a math major having to remember 203043054 theorems to be able to prove anything on analysis tests... but my own experience and the experiences of the people I've tutored has yielded dramatically positive results.

My opinion on LG's stands: they are NOT hard. Every LG answer is easily testable and verifiable. For the 1 difficult global question per game, it's often faster to brute force every answer choice than it is to take shots in the dark trying to make inferences with no references before you start the game, or to list every contrapositive, most of which you'll probably never use. If you need a difficult inference for this question, it's probably easier to make it when you get there and know what you're looking for.

My biggest task is usually getting people to finish LG sections without feeling pressured for time. This accomplishes that. Time pressure is, in my opinion, the #1 factor for getting LG questions wrong.

[APimpNamedSlickback]

well, i got -0 on my games section on test day and happen to think that your advice is laughable.

[gatorlion]

well, i got -0 on my games section on test day and happen to think that your advice is laughable.

+1 (on the laughable)

[02082010]

I can't comment on GeePee's approach as I have never used it but I was effectively -0 LG on Oct 08 exam (actually missed 1 question bc i forgot to bubble in the answer) and I agree that diagramming is completely a function of the game in question. No cut and dry rules about timing at all, but if pressed for an answer, I would say 3-4minutes max to read the game, rules, and draw out the diagram (while making all necessary deductions).

[Kwijiboe]

If you get questions wrong because you read a rule wrong, spend more time next attempt.

Easy enough, right?

I got -0 too, so I am an authority on this matter.

[HelperMonkey]

I spend maybe 45seconds-1 minute diagramming, reading the setup/rules, before I get to the first question. Sometimes I get to the 3rd question by 1 minute in

I'd say <2 minutes is the goal, especially if you can't just blaze through the easier games in less than 6 minutes.

[earthlawyer]

never more than 2 minutes.

I spend a full minute, easily. i have a tendency to write/read stuff backwards or skip words though (ha!) so i make sure that absolutely everything is correct before moving on....

I'm sure people swear by the 30 second diagram. And that's cool. But really it's whatever works for you. I like internalizing all the rules and making all the inferences before moving on, so i definitely spend longer than 30 seconds. And personally, I'm of the sort that thinks knowing all the inferences before attacking the game is a definite time saver.

Of course, if there's only two rules or something and not much inferring to be had, then obviously it takes less time.

Try it both ways and see which one works out better for you.

[GeePee]

well, i got -0 on my games section on test day and happen to think that your advice is laughable.

+1 (on the laughable)

Right... characterizing based off an unrepresentative sample, and calling a setup laughable when you've never even considered it is both mature and well-informed.

I can think of plenty of games off the top of my head where long, convoluted diagrams were a complete waste of time when a simple question-attacking strategy yielded correct answers in 6 minutes or less. Some quick examples are:

- Snakes and Lizards (people psych themselves with too much information on this game... 1 rule pretty much answers every question)

- Car Factory game (Superprep C)

- Zephyr Air

Are there some games where additional inferences are needed? Sure, but they are the vast, VAST minority. As long as you are comfortable with forming contrapositives if you are faced with a situation where plug-n-chug is inefficient compared to forming contras with each rule (I think this has happened to me on 2 questions total; and I've taken almost every PT except 42, 44, 55 (Wednesday), and one in the 30's that I don't remember), it is quite easy to adapt.

My friends that I have tutored seem to agree. Their gains under my tutelage have been mostly on games; I've taken a 143 diag. to a 161 last PT (-16 games to -2), a post-prep course 157 to a 173 (-9 games to -1 misbubble), and a 151 to a 165 (-13 games to -3). This method can get results.

Am I suggesting you change your strategy if you are already doing -0 with a 1-2 minute diagram? No, I'm not that conceited. But for anyone struggling to either finish LG on time, or get questions right after being overwhelmed with useless rules, the "30 second diagram, attack the questions" strategy can work. This is especially true on unusual games, because it does not rely on pre-determined game type templates, rather more general strategies.

Thanks for being so dismissive of my style. I'm glad you're so sure that you know better than me.

[Fancy Pants]

well, i got -0 on my games section on test day and happen to think that your advice is laughable.

+1 (on the laughable)

Right... characterizing based off an unrepresentative sample, and calling a setup laughable when you've never even considered it is both mature and well-informed.

I can think of plenty of games off the top of my head where long, convoluted diagrams were a complete waste of time when a simple question-attacking strategy yielded correct answers in 6 minutes or less. Some quick examples are:

- Snakes and Lizards (people psych themselves with too much information on this game... 1 rule pretty much answers every question)

- Car Factory game (Superprep C)

- Zephyr Air

Are there some games where additional inferences are needed? Sure, but they are the vast, VAST minority. As long as you are comfortable with forming contrapositives if you are faced with a situation where plug-n-chug is inefficient compared to forming contras with each rule (I think this has happened to me on 2 questions total; and I've taken almost every PT except 42, 44, 55 (Wednesday), and one in the 30's that I don't remember), it is quite easy to adapt.

My friends that I have tutored seem to agree. Their gains under my tutelage have been mostly on games; I've taken a 143 diag. to a 161 last PT (-16 games to -2), a post-prep course 157 to a 173 (-9 games to -1 misbubble), and a 151 to a 165 (-13 games to -3). This method can get results.

Am I suggesting you change your strategy if you are already doing -0 with a 1-2 minute diagram? No, I'm not that conceited. But for anyone struggling to either finish LG on time, or get questions right after being overwhelmed with useless rules, the "30 second diagram, attack the questions" strategy can work. This is especially true on unusual games, because it does not rely on pre-determined game type templates, rather more general strategies.

Thanks for being so dismissive of my style. I'm glad you're so sure that you know better than me.

Your style, in my experience, is what most people do when they start off and then they learn to make better diagrams. It seems that if you have no experience with an LSAT logic games section your approach would be to read the rules, right them down in some type of shorthand that makes sense to you, and write down maybe an inference that you see right off the top of your head, and then attack the questions. As a math major I'm sure that approach works for you, but most people aren't math majors.

I would agree that there is something "laughable" about your style - but it's not necessarily how you do the games. What is laughable, to me, is that your style appears to be just an instinctive approach to the games - there isn't really anything learned about it. And hey - if it works for you that's great. But like I said, most people looking to improve their LG section are probably doing so because their first attempt at minimally shorthanding the rules and going straight into the questions didn't work for them.

[kurama20]

GeePee this is going to come across sort of strange...but you are "gifted" like most people who are skilled in the math/sciences. There is just something about Math and science where you either "get it" or you don't. And even more profound, is that those who "get it" often do not even have to put much effort into it. In many ways I feel like this has carried over to your performance on the games section. You just "get" games. And as a matter of fact I will go so far as to say that on the very recent types of games (June 09, Dec 08, Oct 08) your style is preferable due to the nature of your approach. However, for the person who does not "get" logic games (just like those who don't "get" multivariable calculus) your approach can lead to disaster. I'm sure that it can help some people though.

[GeePee]

While there is probably some truth to all of the above replies, my experience, from tutoring math/logic in middle school/high school through tutoring people for the LSAT, is that people are capable of a lot more than they think in mathematical applications once they break through the misconceptions and harmful delusions they have built up. Generally these psychological constructions serve only to console their own shortcomings and inability to grasp material at first glance.

(Side story: in second grade, I failed 3 consecutive mult. tables quizzes. I was ready to give up on learning math for the rest of my school career until it was explained to me how easy multiplication was with some mental shortcuts and the meaning behind the multiplication itself. Carrying this mindset through my schooling, always considering alternate representations/methodologies, I'm about to graduate UG with a 3.98 GPA in mathematics.)

Getting people confidence that they can handle the material that comes their way, even if the theory is cumbersome or obscuring, has always been my goal from basic algebra in 8th grade to getting my humanities major friends through stats/calc I/etc. to getting my math major friends through real analysis/applied stocastic processes/abstract algebra. And it has gotten the people into the mindset that they possess the mental tools to attack situations that present themselves, regardless of whether the initial reaction to the material is daunting. As a result, these individuals feel freed up to attack problems in their own way, with the help of a few tricks and logical methods to connect inferences and determine what the likely "important rules" in a particular game will be.

My methodology is not simply a stand-alone, 30-second-diagram-and-nothing-else sink or swim approach, it certainly has its own caveats and quirks, but in my experience it has worked. I'm not really sure how to explain the rest of my theory quite yet in the abstract, without being there to grant explanation... but maybe one day I'll get there.

Maybe my own personal experience with the individuals of (admittedly) various study skills and mental capacities is unrepresentative, but I really have nothing better to go by. Although I'm quite sure that my experience is certainly no less valid than any other personal experience/anecdote (which is pretty sure what we're all going by on this particular subject matter).

I've said my peace and made my case for my ways; I'm fine if this entire forum leaves it on the table... this has been my last post on the topic.

[Guardian]

Depends on the game. Think of it this way. If there are a ton of rules, that means you should be setting it up in a way that you will be able to answer all the questions in 2 minutes. So the setup will take 3-5 minutes.

If it has barely any rules, setup should be about a minute and then you jump into games.

[academiccricket]

Your games setups should be completed when you feel like you can answer the questions sufficiently

Seriously though, I used to devote a ridiculous amount of time to "complete" the setup (5+ minutes), and then freak out because I was an idiot.

The questions aren't going to test you on every single aspect of the game. Once you do enough of them, you'll pretty much anticipate what inferences they will test you on and your set-up speed will improve.

I usually take about three minutes (maybe more, if they are grouping with a ridiculous amount of inferences) to understand the rules, possible distributions, inferences, plot out different scenarios (Powerscore's "Identify the Templates" technique) and then use the list question at the beginning of the section to double-check my work.

I rarely miss questions on my timed LG sections (at least, on Preptests 21-39), so honestly--just set up until you feel like you are ready to attack the questions and go from there.

[es223]

I go both ways.. first game on PT I barely wrote anything and was done in 4:30..
then in the same section spent 3 minutes on setting upa hybrid seq/distr limited options and only 2:00 more for 7 or 8 questions all correct.. why be so rigid, im all inclusive with my methods.. anything that gets the job done.

now if only i didnt blow the other two games i'd have been a flawless section

[keg411]

Diagram as much information as you need. It really depends on the type of game. I don't write out all of the contrapositives (because I hate them and I can get the inferences in my head with just the "rule"), but I write down all of the information needed along with any inferences that can be made even before looking at the questions. Also, if you are a VERY visual learner, the more you diagram, the more it helps to actually see the inferences and writing down some extra information can prevent silly mistakes.

However, I also recently had an "inference" breakthrough on LG's and have learned not to have to plug-and-play as much. (Got a -1 in LG's on my last PT and a -1 on my last timed section tonight in which I finished with 7 minutes left; I did 3 consecutive sections tonight with LR/RC/LG, so it was like a mini PT without the 2nd LR and the Experimental).