Free Real LSAT Logic Games: Discover Your Best Deductions!
November 21, 2013
You asked for some free real LSAT Logic Games practice, and we heard you! Let’s discover the very best way to handle LSAT logic games using PrepTest 19, and remember to try the game out yourself before reviewing the explanation with us.
After you’ve tried the setup and reviewed the explanations, check out the questions set part 1 and part 2. To get more of a taste of what Kaplan’s methods look like and how they work, come join us for a free LSAT sample class, and start getting your skills where they need to be.
This image is the copyrighted property of the LSAC, taken from PrepTest 19.
The Action: After previewing the introductory paragraph and the rules, we see that this game asks us to order six factories on six consecutive days—in other words, a pretty straightforward sequencing game. Notice one twist: Instead of calling the days Monday through Saturday, the days are numbered 1 through 6. Also included in the intro is a “loophole closer”—each factory will be inspected once and exactly one factory will be inspected per day (so there’s no possibility of days with no inspections, or two or more inspections per day).
The Key Issues will be:
1) When is each factory inspected?
2) What factories can, must, or cannot be inspected before what other factories?
3) What factories can, must, or cannot be inspected after what other factories?
The Initial Setup: A natural way to work this would be horizontal. That’s because this game deals with days of the week, and since most calendars are horizontal, surely it’s most intuitive to follow suit here. List the number of the days across the page and jot down the factories off to the side:
1) Straightforward and simple to build right into the sketch. Over the days, you could write an “F” with arrows pointing to day 1 and day 6. Or you could set up two Options, one in which F is 1st, the other in which F is 6th. Usually, we only set up two sketches (called limited options) when there is more than one entity affected by the rule.
2) The natural implications of this rule are that J can’t be inspected on day 6 and Q can’t be inspected on day 1; somewhere in the sequence J will be followed by Q, but we don’t know at what distance. “J . . . Q” is a good way to symbolize it.
3) It would be difficult not to jump ahead and combine this rule (which mentions Q) with Rule 2, so there’s no reason to wait for “Step 4″ of the Kaplan Method: If you like, you can go ahead and combine them right now. The two rules meld to give “J . . . QR.” Strive to recognize that this gives you a “bloc” of three entities. When you hit the questions, one of the first things you should do is to see where this bloc can go.
4) Here is the sole conditional rule in this game, so take your time and properly translate it and its contrapositive. Rule: “If G on 3 —> Q on 5.” Contrapositive: “If Q not on 5 —> G not on 3.”
The Final Visualization: Here is what we have going into the questions:
The Big Picture:
• When searching for deductions, look for entities that appear in more than one rule. Q pops up in three of the four rules, a hint that there are probably some deductions here.
• Time taken up front is especially important in all logic games, because a careless master sketch can turn a relatively straightforward game like this into a nightmare. A sketch, first and foremost, should be a tool to help you quickly and accurately answer the questions and accumulate points. One instance of sloppy thinking during the setup can foil both of these goals. The Kaplan method will give you a leg up by providing you with the basic sketch structure for every game type– another great reason to come check us out at our sample class!
• “Blocs” of entities are especially useful (like “J . . . QR” here). When you can combine two (or more!) rules to form such a bloc, you’re that much ahead of the game. “Blocs” give you a starting point for all the questions. After dealing with any new information in the question stem, ask yourself, “Alright, where can my bloc go?”
• When paraphrasing or rewriting rules in your mind prior to jotting them down, beware of “caveman talk.” Grunting to yourself “If G 3 then Q 5″ is no help. It’s counterintuitive; it’s an abstraction of an abstraction. Sentences have subjects and verbs for a reason. We’re sure that if your self-talk goes “If I put G in 3, then I have to put Q in 5,” the rules will be more meaningful to you, and you’ll have more success. This takes up no more time than caveman talk. Try it and see!
Sign up for our sample class, and get ready to dive into these methods headfirst– and get the LSAT score you need. Don’t forget to leave any questions you might have in the comments, and stay tuned for the questions that follow our game set up. If you set up the game by yourself already, try to redraw the sketch and deductions as you read the explanations. Good luck!