LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- shodges
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Jackie Chiles
- Posts: 41
- Joined: August 23rd, 2011
Framing if more than 3 frames?
Anyone have much opinions on this? I always had thought that it was kind of a waste of time even if I could see them, but I'm starting to see always framing as a general rule as long as there are 4 possible frames or less.
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3805
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
Re: Framing if more than 3 frames?
Well, unfortunately the person responding to this post is your teacher, so you've basically already heard my response. 
But your question is great, so we should definitely add it to the forum.
The most important thing I think I would say in response to your question is that you definitely do NOT want any rigid formula in terms of when /when not to frame.
There are some game types, such as Relative Ordering or Conditional Grouping, in which you would almost never do frames (although some recent Relative Ordering games actually have had 2 frames).
When you start off learning LSAT by focusing on Basic Ordering games, you see a lot of games that have a chunk.
Chunks are super conducive to frames, and if you like frames, and if you're quick about setting them up, and if you're good at recognizing whether a frame leads to other inferences or when it doesn't, then you might be fine setting up frames for any chunk that has 4 or fewer possibilities.
But a lot of games that are conducive to frames are actually not that bad without. So make sure you give each method a good amount of experimentation.
Ultimately, you're just trying to cultivate good instincts/intuition about whether framing is worth it. There will never be an objectively correct answer to "should I frame this game", but you'll often find some games that seem easier to you w/ frames, and other games that are easy enough w/o frames (making frames an unnecessary use of time).
On most tests, I (should) probably only frame 1 or 2 of the four games. Sometimes I frame more of them, since I'm curious as an LSAT teacher whether I can uncover deeper deductions. But I can rarely justify more than 2 of the 4 games in a section as being "frame-worthy".
I will say this, though -- the general advice in books and class is to frame only if you see the frames representing an important choice in the game that has an effect on other rules .
But I will sometimes lay out frames, even when I know they have no effect on other rules. Sometimes I think it can just be nice to create the frame so that at least, say, 3 of the 7 letters are already written in. That way, I only have to picture what is possible with the remaining 4 (and I find that I can picture where the final 4 parts go, without necessarily writing them, whereas it would be too hard for me to mentally picture more than 4 remaining letters).
I think when you first learn that Frames are possible, you recognize their potential power and want to do them more and more. And then you tend to take that impulse to a point of overkill. And then you find the happy medium ... your instincts start to usually give you the correct sense of whether it would be worth it.
Enjoy the ride!
But your question is great, so we should definitely add it to the forum.
The most important thing I think I would say in response to your question is that you definitely do NOT want any rigid formula in terms of when /when not to frame.
There are some game types, such as Relative Ordering or Conditional Grouping, in which you would almost never do frames (although some recent Relative Ordering games actually have had 2 frames).
When you start off learning LSAT by focusing on Basic Ordering games, you see a lot of games that have a chunk.
Chunks are super conducive to frames, and if you like frames, and if you're quick about setting them up, and if you're good at recognizing whether a frame leads to other inferences or when it doesn't, then you might be fine setting up frames for any chunk that has 4 or fewer possibilities.
But a lot of games that are conducive to frames are actually not that bad without. So make sure you give each method a good amount of experimentation.
Ultimately, you're just trying to cultivate good instincts/intuition about whether framing is worth it. There will never be an objectively correct answer to "should I frame this game", but you'll often find some games that seem easier to you w/ frames, and other games that are easy enough w/o frames (making frames an unnecessary use of time).
On most tests, I (should) probably only frame 1 or 2 of the four games. Sometimes I frame more of them, since I'm curious as an LSAT teacher whether I can uncover deeper deductions. But I can rarely justify more than 2 of the 4 games in a section as being "frame-worthy".
I will say this, though -- the general advice in books and class is to frame only if you see the frames representing an important choice in the game that has an effect on other rules .
But I will sometimes lay out frames, even when I know they have no effect on other rules. Sometimes I think it can just be nice to create the frame so that at least, say, 3 of the 7 letters are already written in. That way, I only have to picture what is possible with the remaining 4 (and I find that I can picture where the final 4 parts go, without necessarily writing them, whereas it would be too hard for me to mentally picture more than 4 remaining letters).
I think when you first learn that Frames are possible, you recognize their potential power and want to do them more and more. And then you tend to take that impulse to a point of overkill. And then you find the happy medium ... your instincts start to usually give you the correct sense of whether it would be worth it.
Enjoy the ride!
2 posts Page 1 of 1