How to Diagram LSAT Questions
Well, I finally sat down and did a couple of these crazy analytical problems that I keep running out of time on. I kept running out of time because I'd get brain-locked when I was unable to solve the things in my head after drawing useless logic diagrams. My background in computers had me trying to use Boolean logic to solve the things, AND, OR, NAND, NOR - didn't get me anywhere. I'm proud to report that on going back and doing two problems from the first test that I couldn't get through my first time around, I went 11 for 11 on the answers, 100% correct. The best part is that it was obvious the answers were right as I chose them, because these problem types only have one correct answer.
My previous failures have me a pretty good idea of how not to diagram an LSAT problem, and one of the things I learned is that abbreviations don't work real well for me. I'm sure that everybody else taking the test uses "B" for "Bob" and "N" for "Natasha", and the LSAT authors seem to play along by uses names with unique first letters. The problem is, I don't associate "B" with "Bob", I associate "B" with "B". So this time, I wrote out all the proper names. Next, I tried to combine the visual aspect with an operator. I used "/" between proper names to say, "these to things have to be next to each other. For things that get put into order, I simply write the thing that comes first over the thing that comes next.
The important thing is to diagram the "must" relationships first, the laws. If Arthur must follow Bob, then I write Bob over Arthur. If Bob must be with Catherine, I add Catherine to the line with Bob, over Arthur. These rules are always presented under the little story paragraph, which has nothing to do with solving or diagramming the problem, unless it gives you a count of how many spots in the order there will be, or some general rule about crowding those spots. The rules deal with the proper names of the things or people getting put in order, the story just gives you a framework.
It's also critical to make a list or diagram of any "free agents", proper names that don't have to be in a certain order, because just knowing who can go anywhere can answer a question. For the time being, another approach I'm using is if you have a "must" relationship that can work two ways, diagram it both ways with OR in between.
Once the rules are properly diagramed, I find I can answer some of the questions without resorting to creating a list. However, if I need a list, I find I can now get away with using initials rather than the whole proper name. I also learned that when you get to the right answer, you better stop. If the right answer is (A), don't waste time reading (and solving for) (B) through (E) just for the sake of feeling confident.
I timed myself on the second LSAT question, it took me six minutes to do the diagram and another six minutes to answer the five questions. I think I should be able to cut this in half with a little practice, because the process was starting to feel familiar the second time around. I'm going to go back and do the rest of the analytical problems, and then maybe I'll pick a couple off the web or out of the back of the book before I start practicing on whole tests. I hate to admit it, but getting the right answers was kind of fun, just a time challenge now.
My previous failures have me a pretty good idea of how not to diagram an LSAT problem, and one of the things I learned is that abbreviations don't work real well for me. I'm sure that everybody else taking the test uses "B" for "Bob" and "N" for "Natasha", and the LSAT authors seem to play along by uses names with unique first letters. The problem is, I don't associate "B" with "Bob", I associate "B" with "B". So this time, I wrote out all the proper names. Next, I tried to combine the visual aspect with an operator. I used "/" between proper names to say, "these to things have to be next to each other. For things that get put into order, I simply write the thing that comes first over the thing that comes next.
The important thing is to diagram the "must" relationships first, the laws. If Arthur must follow Bob, then I write Bob over Arthur. If Bob must be with Catherine, I add Catherine to the line with Bob, over Arthur. These rules are always presented under the little story paragraph, which has nothing to do with solving or diagramming the problem, unless it gives you a count of how many spots in the order there will be, or some general rule about crowding those spots. The rules deal with the proper names of the things or people getting put in order, the story just gives you a framework.
It's also critical to make a list or diagram of any "free agents", proper names that don't have to be in a certain order, because just knowing who can go anywhere can answer a question. For the time being, another approach I'm using is if you have a "must" relationship that can work two ways, diagram it both ways with OR in between.
Once the rules are properly diagramed, I find I can answer some of the questions without resorting to creating a list. However, if I need a list, I find I can now get away with using initials rather than the whole proper name. I also learned that when you get to the right answer, you better stop. If the right answer is (A), don't waste time reading (and solving for) (B) through (E) just for the sake of feeling confident.
I timed myself on the second LSAT question, it took me six minutes to do the diagram and another six minutes to answer the five questions. I think I should be able to cut this in half with a little practice, because the process was starting to feel familiar the second time around. I'm going to go back and do the rest of the analytical problems, and then maybe I'll pick a couple off the web or out of the back of the book before I start practicing on whole tests. I hate to admit it, but getting the right answers was kind of fun, just a time challenge now.
<< Home