Understanding a single sufficient/necessary relationship is one skill. Chaining several of them together — following a conditional through two, three, or four linked steps — is a distinct, harder skill that trips up people who've mastered the basics but haven't practiced the chain.
If A leads to B, and B leads to C, then A leads to C — this transitive chaining is straightforward in the abstract, but gets genuinely difficult when the rules are scattered across several sentences, phrased differently, and mixed with irrelevant rules designed to distract from the chain.
A ruleset might state “if P is selected, Q is not,” “if Q is not selected, R is,” and “if R is selected, S is not” — three separate rules that combine into a single chain: P selected → Q not selected → R selected → S not selected. Missing this chain means missing a powerful deduction that could resolve much of the game upfront.
Write out each conditional rule in shorthand (P→¬Q, ¬Q→R, etc.) as you encounter it, then actively scan for rules that share a term — if one rule ends where another begins, they chain. Do this systematically before starting to place elements in a game, not reactively as questions come up.
Some LR stimuli build multi-step conditional arguments the same way — several linked “if/then” statements building toward a conclusion. The same chain-building habit that helps in Logic Games applies directly here, just without a physical board to diagram it on.