[Anonymous]

I did this game today and reviewed it on 7sage. In the video J.Y. Drew out all worlds. How would you suggest doin this game? The only question that gives me a fit is question #5. (Without solving for all worlds) when solving for all worlds, this question is easier, but is it really worth the time? Solving for all worlds in this particular game seem really complicated to me. Should this just be a question I skip in real time?

[LSAT Dan]

I agree with you that this is not a game I would spend time trying to solve upfront. Other than the acceptability question, there are only four questions, and I’d prefer to just dive into them pretty quickly. One other reason I wouldn’t spend too much time up front trying to solve the game is the “either/or” rules. Typically, the “limited options” or game solving approach tends to work better when the rules are more definite; that’s when you can really draw some inferences. As for question 5, specifically, here’s what I’d do:

1) Scan all past layouts; any answer choice that matches something you have already created in a valid layout must be wrong – you’ve already shown that it could be true.
2) Work through any remaining answer choices focusing on the G/L rule, which should make it not too time consuming. Rules that dictate that people must be in the same group are very helpful. For instance:

A) The driver must be L, the only person G can be in a car with. That leaves F, H, J, and K in the other car, and the only rules left are the ones about drivers. If F drives, that’s ok, so A is wrong.
B) The car that H is not in contains G and L (no room in H’s car). So H’s other person must be F (G is in the other car). That puts G, J, K, and L in the other car. That’s fine if K drives.
C) J’s other person must be F or K. Either is fine, if G drives the other car, which includes L, H, and the other of F or K.
D) G and L are in the car that K is not in.
(continued) J and K can’t be together, because the answer choice would make J the driver, but the second rule says that K would have to be the driver. So J is with G and L.
(continued) Per the first rule, H would also have to be in the car with G and L – K can’t drive H’s car.
That only leaves F as the person who could be in K’s car. But if F and K are alone together, we’re violating the second rule.
(E) is the same as (A) – G and L are in one car together. It doesn’t matter who drives it. As long as F drives the other car, everyone is happy.

Focusing on the most limiting rule (the G/L rule) makes working through this question not as cumbersome as it might have seemed. All of the rules always apply, but they’re pretty much never all equally important. Identifying and focusing on the more important rules is a very useful skill on the LSAT.

[dannypearlberg]

I think that splitting this game into different worlds is worth the time (there’s only 3, right?), but the game is also very doable without splitting into worlds. So, even if you don’t split this game into worlds, I wouldn’t skip #5 in real time: We can cross off (A) given the work in #3 (there’s a scenario there where it’s just L and G in the car), then work through (B) and (C) to show that those situations could be true, and then when you start working on (D) you see that it doesn’t work to have K be the only person other than the driver in one of the cars.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for your answer guys. I tried splitting it without time, and still had trouble with it. I know I was able to handle it without splitting it, so I think I’ll just stick with that. I have one question to follow up on what Dan said. I wasn’t really sure about the most important rule here because I read in the trainer that if an “or rule” usually has 3 or more elements to them, they are very important. Was this just a case where the combination of GL was just a little more important

[LSAT Dan]

It’s not that the other rules aren’t important; I just think (although this is a judgment call, and Danny and/or Mike may disagree) that they’re not as important in this case as a rule that gives us certainty.

Here’s what I mean:

What do we know if H is in a car? Well, nothing really, for sure. F might be driving the car, but F might also not even be in the same car. Maybe G is driving the car. Maybe F and G are both in the car.

But what do we know if G is in a car? L is also in the same car. Period, 100%. So to me, that makes it “more important.” It immediately provides me with some 100% information; on this question, it allows me to right away place both G and L on every answer choice.

Again, this is more of an opinion/judgment call sort of thing. What’s great about a forum like this is that you can get multiple qualified opinions that might disagree, and you get a chance to evaluate them all and see what makes sense or works for you.

[Anonymous]

Gotcha, thanks again Dan and Danny