Last week we talked about how Zen of 180 considers passage structure more important than content; today we'll cover a more comprehensive system for discussing logic games.
- Most LSAT test-prep companies separate logic games into three broad categories: sequencing, grouping, and matching/assignment.
Imagine if the only word we had for "dog" was still dog, but that term also meant every four-legged animal with fur that was shorter than an adult human. Calling an animal a "dog" might mean that it is man's best friend, or that it's a dangerous beast with razor fangs and monstrous appetite, say a tiger.
Obviously, your approach to each animal would be completely different: pet versus hide. Yet, LSAT test-prep companies don't make the distinction between a grouping game that requires a completely different approach from another "grouping" game.
Because the whole concept of Zen task standards is performance driven, we're hoping to categorize games by their diagrams. We hope to codify the tasks that test-takers should be performing during the logic games section: creating a specific diagram for a subset of rule-interactions and then manipulating information within that diagram.
- Most LSAT test-prep companies acknowledge the complexity of logic games by designated them as hybrids of the sequencing, grouping, and assignment types.
Thus, the classification system for analytical reasoning will probably look like this, using the example of June 2007, section 1, questions 18-23:
Rules 2, Conditional 4
As in, the LSAT is asking you to draw a matrix diagram to model the rules, and 2 questions deal with elements of the game, while 4 hinge on conditionals presented by individual questions. Thus, the test-taker has a solid understanding of how to represent the information and which questions apply to which task.