Odyssey's Free LG Explanations + Q&A Forum

mornincounselor · Post by **mornincounselor** » Thu Sep 04, 2014 1:10 am

Post removed.

Jon McCarty · Post by **Jon McCarty** » Thu Sep 04, 2014 1:36 pm

Thanks for the feedback! I'm not 100% sure on what you mean by "throwing in A/B tradeoffs." Could you send an example so I can check it out.

Let me also explain a little bit of the methodology that I used when creating the Game explanations and courses. I could probably spend about a half hour explaining every little piece of every game, teaching from scratch rule notation, conditional logic, dual options and the like every time that it appears so that each game could stand on it's own for everyone. The issue there is that the advanced students would get bogged down by the repetition and likely not get as much from the course/explanations. On the flip side, if there isn't enough detail then the novice students will get lost and potentially misinterpret something and develop bad habits as you mentioned.

To strike a balance between the two, I've created "Lesson Games" and "Homework Games." Lesson Games go over all of the concepts in depth for every type of game. These are the ones that are about a half hour each and delve deeply into every aspect of each game. Each game type gets at least 4 Lesson Games before students move into the Homework Games. In Homework Games the explanations are only about 9 minutes long (the average time you have to complete a game). These explanations are predicated upon the idea that you have watched the Lesson Games and learned why the more fundamental things are being done. This was the best balance between catering to all skill levels. The experts will usually dive right into the video explanations and understand why the simple stuff is being done and the novices will use the courses so that they can build the skills through the super in depth Lesson Games and by the time they reach the Homework Games they have the fundamentals to understand those things as well.

Thanks for pointing this out! If you get to a game explanation and you're unsure as to why a particular technique is being applied then you should go into one of the courses and view the Lesson Games on that type of game or one of the many Strategy Videos to learn the concept so that you can apply it intuitively as well.

Jon McCarty · Post by **Jon McCarty** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 1:13 pm

mornincounselor wrote:That being said, the explanation video for the Mauve Dinosaurs Game (PT 57-3) is incredible! Is that a common thing? To solve for all the Mauve combinations without fleshing out the rest of those possible scenarios? Can you point me to some other games where it's good strategy to use this method? Or is this a strategy that works for this game in retrospect but shouldn't be used under test conditions on new games.

--LinkRemoved--

Thanks,

The Dinosaur Game was one of the most infamously difficult Games in modern LSAT history. I'm happy you found the explanation so helpful! The overarching idea behind the technique relies on knowing when to prove the possibilities out. When the Game is restrictive or an integral part of the Game is restrictive then the technique should be applied. On this Game, the mauve dinosaurs take up 2/5 of the In diagram which is pretty integral and it is extremely restricted as well through the rules. You could certainly do out full possibilities for the game but it is pretty apparent that there won't be much that you can gain from having full possibilities (the other rules aren't interacting with each other in a significant way). Since the diagram is relatively big, doing out the possibilities for the mauve dinosaurs can save quite a bit of time compared to doing out the full possibilities.

Think of proving the possibilities in this Game as deductions. We are deducing which combinations could be mauve. There are lots of other games that this could apply to in various contexts. I don't think any are exactly like the Dinosaurs Game, which is why many people found it to be so difficult but it is certainly a technique that you could apply to future Games. I would say that the big thing that you want to pull out of this Game is why that technique was appropriate so that you can use it if it happens on the test that you sit for - a portion of a large diagram is so restrictive that only a few possibilities exist.

Some other Games that have a similar technique would be In/Out Pure Conditional Games (Lesson 7) and Distribution Games (Lesson 9). Both of those have components that are so restrictive that you prove out the possibilities for segments without actually doing possibilities for the entire Game. In/Out Pure Conditional the chains essentially prove the possibilities without creating multiple diagrams (which is slightly different than the Dinosaur Game) and in Distribution Games the numerical options of the game are so limited that you prove out all of the Distributive possibilities often without doing full possibilities for the whole game.

Here's a couple of Games that utilize a similar technique though it manifests itself in slightly different ways (make sure you've already clicked Instant Access! before clicking the links below):

PT 44 Game 2
http://odysseytestprep.com/revolution/p ... e-2-video/

In this one you should prove the combinations of which dogs can be together without actually setting up different diagrams which is similar to proving the mauve dinosaur combinations without setting up different diagrams.

PT 30 Game 2
http://odysseytestprep.com/revolution/p ... e-2-video/

In this one proving the distributive options instead of creating multiple diagrams and then deducing what must be included is similar in concept as well.

Hope this helps!

mornincounselor · Post by **mornincounselor** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 1:54 am

Post removed.

mornincounselor · Post by **mornincounselor** » Thu Sep 11, 2014 1:28 am

Post removed.

Jon McCarty · Post by **Jon McCarty** » Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:21 pm

mornincounselor wrote: So my question is, how do we know to do something like this if it's the first time we are looking at a game like this? It is possible to know just from the game without looking at the questions or is it something we can only recognize in retrospect?

Essentially, is this a technique we can learn to utilize on test day?

If you encountered this Game in June 2009 then you probably wouldn't have solved it this way because there aren't really any other Games that are quite like it, although the core skills are the same as other Games just applied slightly differently. That being said, if you encountered a Game like it in September 2014 then you could use the skills that you built by reviewing this Game to help solve a new Game that is similar. The main thing you want to look for is restrictiveness. The key here was that a portion of the diagram was restricted in such a way that only a few possibilities existed, so you would want to prove out those possibilities. Then as you approach each question, use the possibilities to help guide you to the correct answer. The skills you build on this Game could certainly be used to help solve future Games.

Jon McCarty · Post by **Jon McCarty** » Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:22 pm

mornincounselor wrote:Oh BTW your explanations for PT 65 are not from the correct PT.

I just doubled checked and they look correct to me, are you sure that you have the correct Game out?

Jon McCarty · Post by **Jon McCarty** » Mon Sep 15, 2014 5:06 pm

Only a couple weeks left to get free access to the Logic Games Revolution! Make sure that you sign up to keep free access through the February 2015 LSAT.

http://odysseytestprep.com/revolution/

zxbn579 · Post by **zxbn579** » Tue Sep 16, 2014 11:00 pm

Jon McCarty wrote:Get free instant access through October 1, 2014. No sign up required.

-or-

Sign up by October 1, 2014 and keep free access through the February 2015 LSAT.

How do we sign up? I can't seem to find that on the website.

Thanks in advance!

I am looking forward to trying out the course!

Jon McCarty · Post by **Jon McCarty** » Tue Sep 16, 2014 11:37 pm

parkcity wrote:
Jon McCarty wrote:Get free instant access through October 1, 2014. No sign up required.

-or-

Sign up by October 1, 2014 and keep free access through the February 2015 LSAT.
How do we sign up? I can't seem to find that on the website.

Thanks in advance!

I am looking forward to trying out the course!

It is on the main page: http://odysseytestprep.com/revolution/

Under the "Instant Access" Button you'll see a hyperlink to "sign up." Just fill out the form and you'll get an email with your username and password. Keep using the Instant Access until October 1st at which point you'll have to use your log in credentials to gain access.

Since October 1st is only a couple weeks away I am going to swap the placement of Instant Access and Sign Up so that Sign Up is the prominent option. Keep an eye out for that change in the next couple of days.

Hope this helps and spread the word so as many people as possible can lock in free access!!

zxbn579 · Post by **zxbn579** » Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:00 am

Jon McCarty wrote:
parkcity wrote:
Jon McCarty wrote:Get free instant access through October 1, 2014. No sign up required.

-or-

Sign up by October 1, 2014 and keep free access through the February 2015 LSAT.
How do we sign up? I can't seem to find that on the website.

Thanks in advance!

I am looking forward to trying out the course!
It is on the main page: http://odysseytestprep.com/revolution/

Under the "Instant Access" Button you'll see a hyperlink to "sign up." Just fill out the form and you'll get an email with your username and password. Keep using the Instant Access until October 1st at which point you'll have to use your log in credentials to gain access.

Since October 1st is only a couple weeks away I am going to swap the placement of Instant Access and Sign Up so that Sign Up is the prominent option. Keep an eye out for that change in the next couple of days.

Hope this helps and spread the word so as many people as possible can lock in free access!!

Great, thanks a lot!

sashafierce · Post by **sashafierce** » Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:57 pm

Jon wrote:So your checklist should be as follows (the videos give better examples, but the checklist is the same):

1. Are there rules with variables in common? If the 1st rule and the 3rd rule both have variable "Q" then consider if there is a deduction to be made (there usually will be).

2. Are there rules with slots or groups in common? If the 2nd and 3rd rule both reference group 2 then there's probably a deduction to be made.

3. Are there spatial restrictions? Usually big rules (like blocks) create spatial restrictions that may yield deductions. Spatial restrictions tend to be stronger deductions on grouping games rather than linear so I really focus on this one for grouping, especially if there is one group that is smaller than the others (more spatial restrictions).

4. Are there any Not Spots? Rules that involve sequencing almost always create Not Spots (ex: blocks or before/after rules)

5. Is there a key component of the game (something bigger than just one variable) that can only go in one of two placement positions? This is more of a strategy than a deduction, but it should be on your checklist. This is what is going to tell you if the game is restrictive enough to prove out all the possibilities. Most people either don't know when to do the possibilities or they try to do them too often. If there is a block, for example, that can only go in slots 2 and 3 or slots 3 and 4 then go ahead and do two possibilities that represent each of them. If there is a single variable that can only go in slots 1 or 7 then it is generally a waste of time to do possibilities. This technique is a double-edged sword and if you overuse it you will lose a ton of time, but if you don't use it in appropriate situations then you will lose a ton of accuracy and time. I found that lots of people struggle with this concept, so in every game that I prove the possibilities I make sure to specify the key component of the game that is restricted to one of two (sometimes three) placement possibilities. This way you can see clearly when and why it is appropriate to use this technique.

I started using this as a guide for finding Inference on all Logic Games, I literally ask myself all of these question when drilling. It has helped me tremendously by making the process more organized Thanks Jon!

Also, I am only in Week 3 of your course but I am happy that I signed up! Its a good addition to my LG prep.

Lacoste · Post by **Lacoste** » Sat Sep 20, 2014 7:52 pm

why do you make it look so easy

.

Good stuff. Really enjoying the idea behind interchangeability. Thanks for allowing free access to the LG explanations!

Jon McCarty · Post by **Jon McCarty** » Sun Sep 21, 2014 9:33 pm

sashafierce wrote:
Jon wrote:So your checklist should be as follows (the videos give better examples, but the checklist is the same):

1. Are there rules with variables in common? If the 1st rule and the 3rd rule both have variable "Q" then consider if there is a deduction to be made (there usually will be).

2. Are there rules with slots or groups in common? If the 2nd and 3rd rule both reference group 2 then there's probably a deduction to be made.

3. Are there spatial restrictions? Usually big rules (like blocks) create spatial restrictions that may yield deductions. Spatial restrictions tend to be stronger deductions on grouping games rather than linear so I really focus on this one for grouping, especially if there is one group that is smaller than the others (more spatial restrictions).

4. Are there any Not Spots? Rules that involve sequencing almost always create Not Spots (ex: blocks or before/after rules)

5. Is there a key component of the game (something bigger than just one variable) that can only go in one of two placement positions? This is more of a strategy than a deduction, but it should be on your checklist. This is what is going to tell you if the game is restrictive enough to prove out all the possibilities. Most people either don't know when to do the possibilities or they try to do them too often. If there is a block, for example, that can only go in slots 2 and 3 or slots 3 and 4 then go ahead and do two possibilities that represent each of them. If there is a single variable that can only go in slots 1 or 7 then it is generally a waste of time to do possibilities. This technique is a double-edged sword and if you overuse it you will lose a ton of time, but if you don't use it in appropriate situations then you will lose a ton of accuracy and time. I found that lots of people struggle with this concept, so in every game that I prove the possibilities I make sure to specify the key component of the game that is restricted to one of two (sometimes three) placement possibilities. This way you can see clearly when and why it is appropriate to use this technique.
I started using this as a guide for finding Inference on all Logic Games, I literally ask myself all of these question when drilling. It has helped me tremendously by making the process more organized Thanks Jon!

Also, I am only in Week 3 of your course but I am happy that I signed up! Its a good addition to my LG prep.

You're welcome sashafierce! Let me know if there are any other topics you'd like a write-up on.

Jon McCarty · Post by **Jon McCarty** » Sun Sep 21, 2014 9:35 pm

Lacoste wrote:why do you make it look so easy .

Good stuff. Really enjoying the idea behind interchangeability. Thanks for allowing free access to the LG explanations!

Happy to help, Lacoste! Let me know if there's anything you have questions on or if you need anything to help your studies.

deebanger · Post by **deebanger** » Sun Sep 21, 2014 9:47 pm

do u have a series on on weird game types like circular ones in your course? thanks! and love your work

Jon McCarty · Post by **Jon McCarty** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 12:07 am

deebanger wrote:do u have a series on on weird game types like circular ones in your course? thanks! and love your work

Thanks so much deebanger! Yes there is a series on Rare Games such as circular, mapping, pattern, and all other strange varieties that usually have appeared in the early 90's but seem to be making a comeback this year. Go to the 16 week course (or any course really) and check out Lesson 10 along with Homeworks 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3. There you'll find a lesson on Rare Games along with over a dozen Games that will test your ability to think on your feet in unfamiliar situations. Given the LSATs this year, it is definitely wise to review some Rare Games before heading into the LSAT. Make sure you look at the explanation for PT 72 Game 4 as well and learn how to dominate that Rare Game using Interchangeability. Let me know what you think!

Jon McCarty · Post by **Jon McCarty** » Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:23 pm

Good luck to everyone taking the LSAT tomorrow!!

sashafierce · Post by **sashafierce** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:43 pm

Today is the last day guys, go sign up for free!

Jon McCarty · Post by **Jon McCarty** » Wed Oct 01, 2014 8:22 pm

Only a few more hours to lock in free access, Don't forget to sign up!

Sign up here: https://odysseytestprep.com/revolution/sign-up/

dwei2 · Post by **dwei2** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 3:16 am

Hi Jon,
I think I signed up a few days ago where I gave my name, email address, and I chose a username. But I haven't received an email containing my password since signing up.

And when I just tried to sign up for the 2 week free trial, it said that my email address is already in use.

Can you please help?

Jon McCarty · Post by **Jon McCarty** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 3:53 am

dwei2 wrote:Hi Jon,
I think I signed up a few days ago where I gave my name, email address, and I chose a username. But I haven't received an email containing my password since signing up.

And when I just tried to sign up for the 2 week free trial, it said that my email address is already in use.

Can you please help?

Hey dwei2,

I'd be happy to help you out, have you checked your spam folder? Sometimes the email ends up there. If you don't find it in your spam then PM me with the email you used to sign up and I will find you in the system and manually resend your password.

Jon McCarty · Post by **Jon McCarty** » Thu Oct 09, 2014 7:51 am

I've added a free two week trial to the Logic Games Revolution so any newcomers can try it out!

sign up here: https://odysseytestprep.com/revolution/2-week-sign-up/

Smallville · Post by **Smallville** » Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:12 pm

Jon McCarty wrote:I've added a free two week trial to the Logic Games Revolution so any newcomers can try it out!

sign up here: https://odysseytestprep.com/revolution/2-week-sign-up/

I grabbed a hold of the free access deal u had b4 oct... would do it 100x over... the LG videos are nice pace and so easy to connect with. I feel so stupid when I miss a simple but huge inference... but def my go-to LG vid's for explanations

tanes25 · Post by **tanes25** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 10:46 am

cavalier2015 wrote:Wanted to briefly give me experience with this. I found the videos VERY helpful. It's a bit of a different approach than what I was used to with 7sage but it offers insights that other services couldn't. The way he breaks down the question is really helpful for me. Plus I like the way how he didn't force splitting or diagramming everything and let the questions sometime dictate the diagrams. This saves a lot of time. Couldn't be happier. Thanks for the efforts!

I'm currently taking the 7Sage course and I'm thinking about looking into this but I don't want it to confuse me too much. You've used the 7Sage method and this one, do they conflict too much? Are you confused or get the two mixed up or anything? I just don't want things to get too complicated and confusing for me. TIA!