When setting up logic games how many inferences such i make before doing question?

For example, do i spend a lot of time working out all the possible inferences in a game, then ideally breeze through the questions? or i could spend very little time setting up the game, and then making inferences on the fly while attacking the questions. This strategy has a high risk of failure given the fact that without spending the time to find the key inference for the game, some of the questions will take far too long to complete; ultimately leaving insufficient time to complete the question.

So, I guess the question is how do you deal with this dilemma? Lots of time spent making lots of inferences? Or little time making very few inferences with the hope that they will come to you while working through the question? Where is that magic mix of not too hot and not too cold for those of you with logic games down pat?

I don't know if this is what you looking for, but to me it was a balance that came with a lot of practice. The luck part is there is always one or two that come easy, at least they should. So, you can use more time on the harder ones. But, as you practice and get familiar with the games, you know which to skip for a short while, go on to the easy ones, check your time and then learn to strike your balance. A key was knowing when to move on and not waste too much time on any one question. It really is about knowing the techiques and then practicing them. hope that helps.

i think the general rule of thumb is to infer until either you can infer no more or until you reach a point where you're just sitting there, starring at a blank page as the clock ticks away; all this to the exception of passing the 4 minute mark, in which case you should move to the questions even if you still think there can be more inferences drawn, since these inferences will likely get fleshed out as you complete the questions.

for some games, it'd be wiser to spend 5 minutes drawing out all the possibilities and then just hammering out all the questions; the danger, of course, is making a mistake and blindly relying on false information.

Here are some tips I got a hold of, they might help you too:

1. Question stems: Read the question stems before investing any time in attacking the passages. This will allow you to pinpoint exactly what you're looking for as you read, saving you a considerable amount of time.

2. Watch out for "Out of Bounds" choices: If several choices appear to be true, see if they pertain to the question itself and to exact boundaries of the argument. Many, many times, multiple answer choices will be true, as far as they go, but the incorrect choices will fall outside the relevant boundaries.

3. Assumptions Rule of Thumb: When working on assumption questions, remember that assumptions, upon which a conclusion relies, must be true for that conclusion to hold. If you have any doubts about whether or not the conclusion relies on a particular assumption, assume that the assumption is false. Is your conclusion still true? If not, the conclusion does rely on the assumption in question.

4. Diagram the Argument: know the basic functions of the following in an argument.

a. Claim/Hypothesis/Conclusion - the idea that the argument attempts to support; note that the hypothesis will likely be backed by data or evidence in order to arrive at the conclusion. (The conclusion is a hypothesis bolstered by evidence and in that way is proven true.)

b. Assumption - a statement that must be true in order for the conclusion of the argument to hold.

c. Evidence - information used to back up assumptions and the conclusion.

Don't focus too much on consciously diagramming the argument, but do make a mental note of the different functions within an argument as you tackle questions.