Standard Ordering | LSAT Logic Games

Standard Ordering games are the most common game type in Logic Games.
0:00 Intro
0:14 Frequency
0:37 The Process
1:24 Game Board
1:57 Rules
4:27 Inferences
5:43 Question 17
6:58 Question 18
9:38 Question 19
11:25 Question 20
14:25 Question 21
16:11 Question 22
19:31 Question 23
21:47 Subgroups
24:08 Non 1:1
27:39 Frames
31:15 Summary
Experience the power of personalized learning when you take a free practice digital LSAT.
lsatlab.com/lsat/plans-starte...
Get our latest videos when you subscribe to the LSAT Lab KZbin channel.

[@UR1956]

I just ran into this video, very informative and well explained. I am 64 years old and taking my LSAT for the time. Thanks!

[@thevanessakay]

Love that energy! Good luck.

[@UR1956]

@@thevanessakay Thank you Vanessa. Have you taken an LSAT?

[@joannabell2453]

I sincerely wish you the best! You can do it! 👍🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

[@thevanessakay]

@@UR1956 I’m about to!

[@UR1956]

@@thevanessakay Good luck, I am about to take mine as well. There are however some games that are rather confusing.

[@auntjossy4161]

Thank you for explaining this clearly. I’m 49 years old, taking my lsat for the first time, yeah, so, I love this. I wished I could be in a class where you teach, live. God bless you.

[@LSATLab]

Glad you find the videos helpful. Feel free to jump into one of my classes at LSAT Lab. I teach Sun-Thu and you're welcome to trial any class you like. lsatlab.com/upcoming-classes/

[@petestevens3970]

As you likely know, the exam is highly “learnable”, with attention to detail, repetition and thorough practice. Discern the patterns, the logic and identity the language usage (and more, obviously), and you’re on your way. Your age and life experience actually bode well for your application. And, if you’re inclined, aim for a scholarship, there’s plenty of money available.

[@themind.ofaaron]

Best of luck to you!

[@cloclo3740]

Congratulations! I know you ace it.

[@joechampion4484]

Just curious, how did you do on your LSAT? I’m taking mine’s soon.

[@ellietwigg6644]

Genuinely can't believe how much clicked for me in just this one video. Thank you!

[@ShineYourLightAlways]

Thank you so much! This was very helpful! God bless!

[@grizzy161]

One of the best videos for logic games. Really helped me improve.

[@AzamjonMusashaykhov]

This was incredibly informative.

[@giftyarthur5881]

This is a great tutorial. Thank you!

[@marcosaceacevedo]

Excellent breakdown!

[@ninakeller9470]

Thank you for such a great explanation! does the question at 15:17 have multiple correct answers since it says "could be true"? You said we only tested one hypothetical so whatever you came up with was proven to be correct. I used a different hypothetical that proved both B and C to be correct - I am just a little confused if you could explain a bit further - thank you!!

[@goofypettiger]

This is excellent!

[@jasonlou2013S]

For the first question I always do it very fast to eliminate those answers which contradict with rules. Answer is C after 10 seconds! Answer question 18 is amazing!

[@thevanessakay]

You make me wish we could use a dry-erase board on the LSAT so bad! It would be so much more convenient and help me to be quicker. Nevertheless, thanks so much for this video!

[@hayyitsolivia]

what really helped me was making two game boards of V in position 3 and then another gameboard of V in position 4

[@mrquazimoto0075]

thank you

[@Mycole]

For Q21, is it expected to find the appropriate hypothetical first, even if others are true? If I understand correctly, choice B could also work, but I wonder if that even matters if the main rule is to find scope out all the answers, and find the first answer that solves the problem? Thanks!

[@ctoll4670]

Great video! Do you plan on putting out a grouping game video?

[@therealsherminator]

We do. We should have a new LG video up every week for the next 8 weeks or so. Grouping is slotted for the week after next.

[@KC-sm2ox]

Great explanation. I was wondering about conditional rules and how you notated them, why don't you display the contrapositive of the rule? Is this to incentivize learners to mentally adapt by memorizing the contrapositive, thereby making them more efficient? Thanks.

[@LSATLab]

Hi KC, I think writing down the contrapositive is helpful for some, but I personally find them difficult to use. I find that the more rules I have written down in the rules area the slower I go because my eyes don't know where to look next. Everyone is different though, so writing down the contrapositive might be the right call for you.

[@Queenofcatss]

Is going through all the scenarios and the answer choices time efficient? I’m not as worried about understanding these types of questions. I’m worried because the tactics I’m using to get my correct answers are extremely time consuming. Would making more inferences upfront have saved us any time on this set?

[@LSATLab]

It's honestly a murky "it depends". Personally, I make very few uprfront inferences, do brute force trial-and-error for most of an LG section, and usually can get 100% accuracy with about 5 mins to spare. So it's possible to get quick enough with trial and error that it's a realistic strategy given the time constraint. That said, some games def are such that some frames/worlds/templates up front would speed up the back end (or some key inference, IF we can make it). But how many people are good at making a key inference upfront under time pressure? You can't force yourself to have a clever insight. You can learn some questions to ask yourself that often lead to inferences, but other inferences are pretty unique to a given game. So in a sense we can say, "Yes, making more inferences upfront will probably always save us time, but only if we can make those inferences really quickly and most of us can't in a time-pressured situation". For this game, those of us who like framing Block rules could have potentially thought, "I'm gonna make a frame/world/template for each of R_M's possible positions". R _ M _ _ _ _ _ R _ M _ _ _ _ _ R _ M _ _ _ _ _ R _ M _ _ _ _ _ R _ M five frames is more than most people think is a good idea, but it depends. Are you really quick about setting up frames, fleshing out the ones that have consequences, and walking away from the ones that don't? If we fleshed out those frames we'd get R T M V [ (PS), W ] T R V M [ (PS), W ] _ _ R V M _ _ (PS) V R T M W _ _ _ _ R W M We have to think about whether the time spent creating those would save us enough time on going through the questions for it to be worth it.

[@t.morgan9244]

5:39 at this point I was taught to make worlds to eliminate rules. A rule that never has to be thought about ever again. R _ M . How many places can this block go? Make worlds based on R _ M block. Then jump into “if” questions (Local questions) first.

[@LSATLab]

Yup, that's definitely an option at that juncture. In this case, R _ M seems to have 5 options, so we'd be creating 5 worlds. For most people, that's too many. They usually eschew world-building unless it's as simple as 2 or 3 worlds. Those of us that love making worlds (or 'frames'), might still be willing to make 5 of them (especially because there is another block rule and the V is 3 or 4 rule that would probably create some domino effects in multiple worlds). But building worlds up front carries some risks, so it's a judgment call we make in realtime and based on our understanding of our own strengths / weaknesses in games. Generally, as teachers, we try to model a method that we think is what most people would be best served by in a given situation. Only very experienced test takers can pull off creating 5 worlds smoothly and efficiently, so for this game (and for a KZbin audience that skews more towards beginners) we're just modeling the "head to questions" version of playing out the game. But you're right that there definitely is an opportunity to build worlds, if you think you can accurately and efficiently set up 5 worlds there.

[@stepfisp15]

how many logic games videos do you have? I have seen only 2. Thank you

[@LSATLab]

Just those 2 so far, but a few more coming in the next few weeks (and some more RC lessons too).

[@azubu1ke]

Am I missing something at 17:47 ? If r goes 4th then you can still place V3rd and M6th leaving T5 and W7. Not sure what I’m missing here.

[@LSATLab]

I think you're asking yourself whether R *can* go 4th, but the question stem is asking whether R *must* go 4th, whether 4th is the only possible spot for R. We can prove choice (C) wrong by saying, "4th isn't the only possible spot for R, when T and W are one apart. Look at this hypothetical we have here where R is in 5th, while T and W are exactly one apart." On Must Be True you're never asking yourself whether the answer is POSSIBLE. You're only assessing whether it's avoidable.

[@azubu1ke]

@@LSATLab Thank you for answering the question so beautifully. Learning moment

[@loopymomy2532]

@@LSATLab Actually this also discusses A. We can have SPVRTMW which is why M being on seventh is easily crossed off since it can also be on 6th. Which would have made E easier to choose.

[@atticusjordan499]

On Q19 couldn't you also have the order be T, R, V, M, P, S, W and still follow all the rules?

[@desmc1029]

im confused on question at 9:15. I was able to get PSVRTMW. Did I break a rule?

[@LSATLab]

You didn't break a rule, but you violated the IF condition of the question (Q18). That scenario is legal in general, but the question on the screen at 9:15 was one that said "If S is in the seventh position". In your scenario you have S in the second position, so that scenario isn't eligible for this question. We can only consider scenarios where S is seventh for this question.

[@kstaw]

amazing and informative video - everything is logically explained we would just be over the time limit by 30 minutes doing every answer fml

[@asadrk]

For the third question (Pissarro in fifth, local), isn’t there a quicker way to do it?

[@thruthestormon18wheels64]

Yes, you don’t have to do anything but look at the answer choices. When you look at answer choice C and compare that to the PS rule, you’ll have your answer

[@andwhale06]

As soon as you can prove that S cannot go in the 4th position, you establish that answer C must be correct. So yeah, testing all of the other choices as he does is unnecessary

[@asadrk]

testing all the answer choices seems to be too lengthy

[@thatsseauxnish_]

I agree. I wonder is this a case of being more efficient or being more fast?

[@victorugwuanyi7403]

3 weeks after means the 4th week No?

[@therealsherminator]

3 weeks after the first week would be the fourth week, correct.

[@renkalexander325]

For Q22, I got P/S, P/S, V, R, T, M, W.... but I didn't think I broke any rules doing it that way.

[@LSATLab]

Correct, that's the same hypothetical that Matt shows on screen at 19:20, which he uses to eliminate (A).

[@desmc1029]

Im confused on this one as well. So he used it to eliminate A but I got C as the answer. I had the same order PSVRTMW of course being able to switch PS @@LSATLab

[@desmc1029]

why can't this formula be used to eliminate each of the A, B, D, and E?@@LSATLab

[@desmc1029]

Can you explain why the PSVRTMW formula wouldn't work so that I am not confused?

[@LSATLab]

we agree that PSVRTMW is a legal scenario, given the IF condition (T _ W) and the other rules of the game. It could be true. It proves (A) wrong. We can say, "Hey, (A), M doesn't have to 7th. Look, here's a legal scenario where it's in spot 6." It also works to prove (D) wrong. We can say, "Hey, (D), T doesn't have to be 2nd. Look, here's a legal scenario where T is in spot 5." But it doesn't help us eliminate (B), (C), or (E), because those answers match PSVRTMW. We can't say, "Hey, (B), P doesn't have to be 1st. Look, here's a legal scenario where P is 1st." Does that make sense? @@desmc1029

[@jackbrooks64]

M goes in 7th posish instead of 6th posish..smells phishy

[@sunii4264]

two D's