LG- Binary Grouping and the Logic Chain

[shaynfernandez]

Logic games are my strongest category of the LSAT, but I have recently had a few problems with the MLSAT technique. The Logic Games book endorses the Logic Chain as the most effective approach to tackling Close and Open Binary Games. However I am finding for the majority of these types of games that I am doing the Logic Chain is often more time consuming than it is beneficial.

The games I have done this past few days that MLSAT would categorize as Binary have been the following.
(PT.G#)
20.2, 24.4, 30.1, 31.2, 32.2, 33.2, 33.3, 35.1, 36.1


Able: 20.2, 33.2, 36.1
-These open/closed binary games and are great for the logic chain, not a better approach even though they have at least one constraint with difficult compound conditionals (ex. and in sufficient/ or in necessary).

Able but not most effective: 24.4, 33.3
-These are closed binary games that a chain can be used, but either the chain only is useful for less than half the elements or the chain can be deduced into simple shorthand ex. A --> B--> ~C and ~D
-Speed is sacrificed greatly in using the chain, due to larger amounts of variables than connections or inferences from them.

Non-existent: 31.2, 30.1, 32.2, 35.1
-These closed binary games where a chain is virtually non-existent, taking any time to attempt a chain is a hindrance.

I realize that these are only 9 games total and a relatively weak sample size, but I also wouldn't want to keep looking to use this approach if it is only effective for 1/3 of its game types.

I am just wondering if anyone has noticed this same trend with binary games, most specifically closed binary games?
Is it that i am incorrectly categorizing these games?
Or are these older "binary" games under-representative to the trends of the newer games labeled "binary", and if so does anyone know of a more accurate and recent list to work from?

Overall the Manhattan approach has been very effective for me, but these binary games are not holding well with the logic chain and endorsed approaches.

[noah]

Thanks for the post. As you've figured out, the chain is particularly useful for open games, and for closed games, serves as another option for notating the rules. You should start to find that even for closed games where there's little linking, you'll have become very comfortable with the chain lay-out that it will help you organize your thinking (perhaps about numbers). It shouldn't take long to sketch the elements and write any rules to the side that don't fit into the chain.

Because we don't find the chain "getting in the way" of games that don't have lots of links, or for which there are many compound conditionals to write to the side, it wouldn't be in our students' interests to start designating for which games the diagram works particularly well. The time spent writing out the letters, and putting in any rules is not really wasted. You need a roster, and you need to write out the rules. I believe you (or was it someone else?) recently asked this about the French and Russian novel game, and that's a good example of where you want to look to the numbers and the chain doesn't help. In some respects, writing out the elements, and noting that the connections between them aren't there is what drives you to look for another way to understand the game. But, since that sort of extreme situation is rare, getting into hyper-categorizing leaves us with a mess that we think is best avoided. In the end, every diagram works better and worse for different games, even those that it's designed for.

You seem to be particularly good at games (or at least good at writing about them!) so I bet you'd be the sort of student that could quickly adapt and set aside the chain if you want to. Other diagrams for these games involve writing out the rules, and, once in a while, creating grouping areas. Those are not very complex to execute.

BTW:

30.1 is an assignment game (soon to be called a 3D grouping game -- we're changing some game names soon).

32.2 is one I'd personally categorize as assignment/3D grouping. Only one conditional rule.

35.1 is really a grouping game, with two variables, similar to the sliced/unsliced bakery. The rules are not conditionals.

The chain is designed to handle binary situations with conditional rules. Those games are are grouping, with an additional variable. So, if you do want a rule of thumb, scan the rules looking for conditional rules before expecting your chain to do much work for you.