More Fool Proof Method Questions

amedley88

Hi everyone! Sorry if this is redundant. I have been going at the fool proof method for about 2.5 weeks now and here is what I'm finding and where I am struggling:

• I am finding that I am slightly over time and typically -2 to -3 when I do a tackle a game, which is a major improvement from when I first started but still not close to where I want to be
• I am often able to get all inferences and perfect when I go through the game 3-4 times on the first day, perfect and all inferences on the day after in one to two tries, but then when I go back to the question in a week, it is often the same result as my first try on the first day. What should I do in this case? If I repeat the process I will be just completing the same questions over again with a huge back log, what did you do to overcome this?
• Also, how long did it take you to master the games to a point where you felt comfortable and how did you balance studying for the other sections? I am hoping to take the test in June but am willing to push it if I am not averaging my target score by then (160-163, I am a mature Canadian student). Should I be focusing on other sections while doing LG every day up until the exam?

Thanks!

jknauf

Hi @amedley88

The fact you have improved is a great sign. I wouldn't worry about time yet as it is still early in your studies. Speed in LG will come with repetition and familiarity. Honestly, it sounds like you are doing exactly what you need to be doing. Keep at it.

@amedley88 said:

• Also, how long did it take you to master the games to a point where you felt comfortable and how did you balance studying for the other sections? I am hoping to take the test in June but am willing to push it if I am not averaging my target score by then (160-163, I am a mature Canadian student). Should I be focusing on other sections while doing LG every day up until the exam?

I'm no master, but I normally go -0 / -2 unless there is a weirdo game. Which sucks because there probably will be a weirdo game on the next exam. I would say it took me a little over a month to achieve a good understanding of logic games.

I wouldn't neglect other sections, you still have a little over 3 months left so you still have plenty of time to reach a good understanding of all sections.

amedley88

@jknauf said:
Hi @amedley88

The fact you have improved is a great sign. I wouldn't worry about time yet as it is still early in your studies. Speed in LG will come with repetition and familiarity. Honestly, it sounds like you are doing exactly what you need to be doing. Keep at it.

@amedley88 said:

• Also, how long did it take you to master the games to a point where you felt comfortable and how did you balance studying for the other sections? I am hoping to take the test in June but am willing to push it if I am not averaging my target score by then (160-163, I am a mature Canadian student). Should I be focusing on other sections while doing LG every day up until the exam?

I'm no master, but I normally go -0 / -2 unless there is a weirdo game. Which sucks because there probably will be a weirdo game on the next exam. I would say it took me a little over a month to achieve a good understanding of logic games.

I wouldn't neglect other sections, you still have a little over 3 months left so you still have plenty of time to reach a good understanding of all sections.

Thanks jknauf! You have been really helpful and encouraging! Did you / are you study(ing) logic games right up until the test in tandem with the other sections, if so, how are you dividing your time?

BinghamtonDave

Third point: game progress for me is a constant effort, it ebbs and flows. I have tested myself on PT C once every 5-6 weeks or so for an honest barometer of where I am. PT C is in my estimation the single hardest set as a whole in LSAT history. So I figured if I can handle PT C for a -0 in under 34 minutes, I would be in excellent shape. Please consider trying this set if you haven't already. It has been my experience that this set does not lie and if you have questions of where you objectively are on LG, this set will answer them better than any other in my estimation. If you get a -10, don't worry. That was what I got on this set after 4 months of studying. This set is a training partner that is tougher than the actual match.

I have managed to balance trying to master games and RC with attempting to get super proficient on LR without doing one at the exclusion of the others. I have completed over 1300 games to date and just within the last 2 or so months feel truly comfortable talking about games in an in depth way. I don't want such a daunting number to deter anyone, so it should be noted that I started truly terrible with games when I started studying for that section. I did not take a diagnostic, but probably would have been -21 or -22 on the LG section if I had. I credit it my current success on games to two things: 7Sage videos/CC and good old fashion drilling.

Your other points: everything you described, I went through, from timing issues, to getting my timing down and then my accuracy would suffer. From getting my accuracy really good, but my timing would suffer. Others will certainly voice their opinions on this thread but in my estimation: you need more and more practice. Practice games and really try to understand why certain answers are correct. Truly get to the bottom of why answers are what they are when you review and fool proof games.
If a question is asking you to set something up and then asking for a MBT: know precisely what the CBT answer choices are, know precisely what the MBF answer choice is. When you "see" precisely what is going on with a game, you are command of the questions.

The problem you describe with the inferences a week later has happened to me: for me, this meant that I really wasn't carrying the inferences with me. What does that mean? To "carry" an inference with you means that you know what certain conditions mean for the board you have in front of you. An easy inference to carry on sequencing games are leaders: those elements that you are placing on your board that have other elements after them. These elements are restricted in where they go. If you have a 5 space sequencing game and a piece in which 3 elements come after it: you have a piece that must be in spot 1 or 2. A precondition for seeing this inference would be to push rules together in such a way to reveal these things to you.
Carrying this inference with you would allow you to easily and efficiently answer a question about where that piece cannot go.

In In and out games, an inference you might carry with you would be that if you are building towards a certain number in the "in" column, that means the out column has a max, and when that max is met: all the remaining pieces filter into the in column. These are things that can be mastered through practice, practice, practice.

I hope the above helps, any further questions don't hesitate to reach out on here or via message.
David

amedley88

Thanks for that post @BinghamtonDave, I appreciate it and it definitely clarified what is meant by clarifying an inference

I guess I am starting to feel the pressure and am having trouble balancing my current ambitious LG study schedule with reality lol. For example, if I do a new set of four games each week day, I will have to follow it up with one from one week ago and another set of four I did the previous day. If it takes me three tries to get each of the twelve total games perfect in the amount of recommended time for each game, that's 36 tries per day. I don't know if I can balance that with work commitments and needing to focus on the other sections. I guess I'm just wondering how others were able to reconcile this.

jknauf

@amedley88 said:
I don't know if I can balance that with work commitments and needing to focus on the other sections. I guess I'm just wondering how others were able to reconcile this.

It's tough, especially working full time. The amount of tries you have to do before perfecting a game will come down after you get better. That will save some time. Other than that, for people who are working full time, you need to make full use of your weekends. If you can do 2 hours a day on weekdays, plus 5 hours a day on weekdays. That is about 20hrs a week which is a pretty good amount of study time.

@amedley88 said:

Thanks jknauf! You have been really helpful and encouraging! Did you / are you study(ing) logic games right up until the test in tandem with the other sections, if so, how are you dividing your time?

Oh definitely. I'll be doing logic games right up until game day. With that being said, I don't focus on them specifically much often anymore. Unless I find a game I truly cant understand. But by the time I take the LSAT, I am going to have seen every logic game.

Currently I'm devoting most of my time to PTs, blind review, and RC drilling. I'm drilling RC because it is such a huge problem area for me.

My time is usually spent something like: take PT, blind review, assess problem areas with thorough review and argument analysis, returning to core curriculum if need be, drilling problem areas. Repeat.

AllezAllez21

I'm going to jump in here with a related question on the Fool Proof Method.

Is it better to:
1. Repeat a game over and over to literally memorize the inferences?
2. Space the game out a little bit more to have to actually practice making those inferences? (as in, maybe schedule it for every other day)

The advantage to 1 is that you presumable memorize the inferences for a particular game faster, but the advantage to 2 is that you get more practice generating inferences with your own thought process.

I guess the answer that avoids this discussion is to just get on with it and drill a whole ton, but there is limited time until June and I'm wondering if I should be repeating troublesome games 3-4 times in a row in one day (and thus only getting to like 3-5 games) or if I should be doing something more like doing 7-10 games in a day and then trying those same 7-10 the next day or two days later.

amedley88

Hey everyone, just an update:

• Over the past month I have completed the LG sections from PTs 1-17 using the Fool Proof method and have noticed a significant improvement
• At first it was taking me between 4-5 tries to "master" a game (even basic simple sequencing games) in the time limit and now I am able to do it easily in two tries
• What really helped me was lowering the amount I was doing per day (I started off trying to do 4 games per day, including ones from the day before and one week ago). I then aimed to do half of that and now my skills have improved so drastically I can do four per day if I wish, but am now going to focus on other sections in addition to LG
• Blind reviewing the question without watching the explanation video after my first try also really helped me develop my speed and understanding of inferences. In fact, I began timing my BR second try and have found I can often score perfect

I am still obviously not where I want to be but am satisfied with this level of improvement after one month and am going to continue down this path.

Hopefully I can be ready for the June LSAT, however, I am willing to push it to September if I am not averaging my target score (163-165) by the month of the test.

Thank you for all your help and advice 7sage! I will continue to update

As always, feel free to leave any suggestions...

amedley88

@AllezAllez21 said:
I'm going to jump in here with a related question on the Fool Proof Method.

Is it better to:
1. Repeat a game over and over to literally memorize the inferences?
2. Space the game out a little bit more to have to actually practice making those inferences? (as in, maybe schedule it for every other day)

The advantage to 1 is that you presumable memorize the inferences for a particular game faster, but the advantage to 2 is that you get more practice generating inferences with your own thought process.

I guess the answer that avoids this discussion is to just get on with it and drill a whole ton, but there is limited time until June and I'm wondering if I should be repeating troublesome games 3-4 times in a row in one day (and thus only getting to like 3-5 games) or if I should be doing something more like doing 7-10 games in a day and then trying those same 7-10 the next day or two days later.

• What really helped me was giving myself 8-12 minutes to complete the game on my first try (using a timer that counts up), going back and blind reviewing it after without watching the video. Afterwards, I watch the video and aim to have it complete in the target amount of time on my third try and then go back to it the next day and one week later.

• I found that when I tried to "cram," it overwhelmed me. Especially when I would do 4-5 new questions on a given day but then have to do them again the next day and then one week later. Try just doing two per day and then building on from there, while also studying other sections of the test if you can. JY was right when he said that your conditional logic skills for LR will see a great improvement after focusing on only logic games, so it's all connected

amedley88

@AllezAllez21 said:
I guess the answer that avoids this discussion is to just get on with it and drill a whole ton, but there is limited time until June and I'm wondering if I should be repeating troublesome games 3-4 times in a row in one day (and thus only getting to like 3-5 games) or if I should be doing something more like doing 7-10 games in a day and then trying those same 7-10 the next day or two days later.

I guess the short answer is keep at the 3-4 times in a row per game per day, but keep the number of games low until you don't need as many tries before you master it... but what does everyone else think? Sorry for the three comments in a row by the way