Fool Proofing Time Line!?

Alex

So, as some of you may know games are my lease intuitive section.

I am currently fool proofing PTs 1-35 and I am seeing some improvement. (Using an adapted version of @Pacifico's method)

My question is how many games do you aim to do a day?

A full LG Section worth (4-Games)? More/Less?

Lately, I've been aiming to do about an LG section a day. I follow the fool proof guide exactly as prescribed.

I'm curious to know how those of you who have successfully fool proofed the bundle spread them out? Basically, how long did it take. I know, I know, the journey is never over. But let's assume your first time through fool proofing PTs 1-35?

Also, should we wait until we have done all the fool proofing to begin PTs?

Thank you

AllezAllez21

I just finished fool proofing 1-35.

I did it slightly differently from the Pacifico/JY methods.

I scheduled out 3 LG sections a day (12 games total). However, I did not repeat the games within the day. I just did them, watched JY do them, then moved on to the next. I did PTs 1-16 in order, then repeated those until I felt I had mastered them all. Then I repeated the process with 17-35.

It took me almost exactly three months. I didn't strictly adhere to making sure I got in 3 sections every single day, so it could probably be done a bit faster.

I like only doing a game once and then moving on and not seeing it for another 5-7 days. I think it saved me the boredom of repeating a game over and over and over, and it also challenged me more to remember inferences after a few days had passed. I still only did the vast majority of games 4 times, so I don't think it slowed down my learning.

As for when to start PTing, that depends. If you want to take the LSAT this September to apply to law school for 2018, then I would say do not wait. Probably regardless, you don't need to wait. I felt my LG skills rapidly improving after about 4-5 weeks. The biggest gains will be made at the beginning. You won't master LG right away but within 4-6 weeks I bet you will be able to go -3 or less on most timed LG sections, and that's probably good enough to get started PTing and learning the test overall. I would not want to wait another 6-8 weeks just to get that extra polish on LG. Better to finish fool proofing simultaneously with PTing.

Freddy_D

I just finished fool-proofing all the games (1-35) and it took a little over a month. I would usually do 1 PTs worth of games per day and then review the games about a week after I initially took them. After about 2-2.5 weeks, things really started to click. I'm currently going through them one more time before I start PTing

sagarpatel

Employing @Pacifio's method, I usually did four games or one full section each the weekday and one PT on the weekends. After a while, you'll start to draw inferences mentally as you are writing out the game rules. It's great! Be forewarned, you'll start to be a game addict after you foolproof. I'm currently drilling the remainder sets and that's the only thing I want to do the whole day. It's pretty sick but nonetheless it is imperative if you want to break into the 170 range.

Alex

Thanks Ya'll! I'm kind of doing the @Freddy_D method, but @AllezAllez21 has a good strategy too.

Alex

However, I am definitely interested in what some of the Sages have to say: @"Cant Get Right" @"Accounts Playable" @danielznelson @"Jonathan Wang"

Alex

Incidentally, why does Mike Kim's LSAT Trainer schedule only use PTs PT52-71 Do you think there is something to this? Interesting and would love to discuss it.

If you can't tell I'm working from home today and can't really do any prep. Probably for the best: I'm proud to announce I've gone a month of prep, no missed days, just Sunday afternoons!

Alex

@AllezAllez21 said:
I just finished fool proofing 1-35.

I did it slightly differently from the Pacifico/JY methods.

I scheduled out 3 LG sections a day (12 games total). However, I did not repeat the games within the day. I just did them, watched JY do them, then moved on to the next. I did PTs 1-16 in order, then repeated those until I felt I had mastered them all. Then I repeated the process with 17-35.

It took me almost exactly three months. I didn't strictly adhere to making sure I got in 3 sections every single day, so it could probably be done a bit faster.

I like only doing a game once and then moving on and not seeing it for another 5-7 days. I think it saved me the boredom of repeating a game over and over and over, and it also challenged me more to remember inferences after a few days had passed. I still only did the vast majority of games 4 times, so I don't think it slowed down my learning.

As for when to start PTing, that depends. If you want to take the LSAT this September to apply to law school for 2018, then I would say do not wait. Probably regardless, you don't need to wait. I felt my LG skills rapidly improving after about 4-5 weeks. The biggest gains will be made at the beginning. You won't master LG right away but within 4-6 weeks I bet you will be able to go -3 or less on most timed LG sections, and that's probably good enough to get started PTing and learning the test overall. I would not want to wait another 6-8 weeks just to get that extra polish on LG. Better to finish fool proofing simultaneously with PTing.

Did you only do LG during that time? Or did you also find to drill and PT or whatever?

AllezAllez21

@"Alex Divine" said:
Did you only do LG during that time? Or did you also find to drill and PT or whatever?

I am studying full time, so I did other stuff throughout. On the first pass through or two, it will take much more time to do the game, watch the video, think about it, etc. Once you hit the third and fourth attempts, you are likely to be flying through almost all the games.

So initially, I was probably doing each section in about an hour to an hour and a half. Thus, much of my day was only LG. But by the third attempt I could do all three sections in an hour and a half, so I had plenty of time for other stuff.

Alex

@AllezAllez21 said:

@"Alex Divine" said:
Did you only do LG during that time? Or did you also find to drill and PT or whatever?

I am studying full time, so I did other stuff throughout. On the first pass through or two, it will take much more time to do the game, watch the video, think about it, etc. Once you hit the third and fourth attempts, you are likely to be flying through almost all the games.

So initially, I was probably doing each section in about an hour to an hour and a half. Thus, much of my day was only LG. But by the third attempt I could do all three sections in an hour and a half, so I had plenty of time for other stuff.

Thank you dude!

cgracia12

Yeah, following the fool proof method, Idk how people have more time to do more than one LG section in a day, unless LG's is all they're working on for the day.

I focus on 1 LG section per day. So today was my third day full-time, so I'm on PT 3. I try once, watch the explanations, then try again, and I'm done with that game unless I completely screwed it up, I'll try again. I do the same for the next 3 games. The next morning, I attempt all the games from PT3 again, and start the new 4 games from PT 4. I think not doing the second attempt right after kind of defeats the purpose of the fool proof method.

How has it been for you man?

Alex

@cgracia12 said:
Yeah, following the fool proof method, Idk how people have more time to do more than one LG section in a day, unless LG's is all they're working on for the day.

I focus on 1 LG section per day. So today was my third day full-time, so I'm on PT 3. I try once, watch the explanations, then try again, and I'm done with that game unless I completely screwed it up, I'll try again. I do the same for the next 3 games. The next morning, I attempt all the games from PT3 again, and start the new 4 games from PT 4. I think not doing the second attempt right after kind of defeats the purpose of the fool proof method.

How has it been for you man?

I do something similar actually. I aim to fool proof a PT a day. Usually before lunch or so. Then afterwards I find time to do CC lessons, and read outside prep material. It seems to be working well so far. I'm on game 7 or 8 and I already feel much more confident and just less stressed.

I just hope the newer games from the 50s on are a bit easier....lol

nicholasthomas127

I finished fool proofing 1-35 a few weeks ago. It took me around a month and a half to do. I wanted to start PTing as soon as I finished the CC, however, I did end up pushing back PTing a few weeks until I finished all the games. I felt infinitely more comfortable PTing after fool proofing. As for how many to do a day, for me at least, I tried to do at least one section per day with some days doing two. When I started a section, however, I definitely tried to finish all four games (just a weird pet peeve of mine to not leave a section finished).

Alex

Although sometimes I wonder if I was doing better with the Cambridge Packets. It really helped me to see pattern recognition on. The argument people tend to leverage against them is that because they are categorized you lose your ability to differentiate on the real test.

Trust is probably somewhere in the middle and the fact the packets were grouped type and by difficulty made it easier to kind of get the confidence on the basic shit before jumping right in. Oh well... Friday night and I'm bored. Wait... It's Tuesday!!!

Alex

Do you guys ever skip questions when fool proofing sometimes...games like this, for example:

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-2-section-3-game-3/

It makes me feel guilty a bit, but I know we aren't likely going to see many of these types of games current exams....

But, do you guys secretly ever skip a game now and then....

Summer17

@"Alex Divine" said:
Do you guys ever skip questions when fool proofing sometimes...games like this, for example:

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-2-section-3-game-3/

It makes me feel guilty a bit, but I know we aren't going to see anything like this on a current exam....

To be fair, I skipped over that specific game at first because I did not see any relevancy, but later that day I fool proofed it. I don't see a harm in doing it, it could help you make inferences easier when doing grouping games with alternating fixed slots, but the chances of a game like that showing up is probably next to 0%.

Alex

@Summer17 said:

@"Alex Divine" said:
Do you guys ever skip questions when fool proofing sometimes...games like this, for example:

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-2-section-3-game-3/

It makes me feel guilty a bit, but I know we aren't going to see anything like this on a current exam....

To be fair, I skipped over that specific game at first because I did not see any relevancy, but later that day I fool proofed it. I don't see a harm in doing it, it could help you make inferences easier when doing grouping games with alternating fixed slots, but the chances of a game like that showing up is probably next to 0%.

I think you've convinced me to just bite the bullet. Can't hurt, right?

Thank you! And if something similar shows up, we'll be covered, haha.

Summer17

@"Alex Divine" said:

@Summer17 said:

@"Alex Divine" said:
Do you guys ever skip questions when fool proofing sometimes...games like this, for example:

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-2-section-3-game-3/

It makes me feel guilty a bit, but I know we aren't going to see anything like this on a current exam....

To be fair, I skipped over that specific game at first because I did not see any relevancy, but later that day I fool proofed it. I don't see a harm in doing it, it could help you make inferences easier when doing grouping games with alternating fixed slots, but the chances of a game like that showing up is probably next to 0%.

I think you've convinced me to just bite the bullet. Can't hurt, right?

Thank you! And if something similar shows up, we'll be covered, haha.

Haha yes exactly!

Freddy_D

Yeah, like @Summer17 says, games like that one help with making number inferences in future games

Alex

Well, I think I made my mind up then. thank you fellas!

Cant Get Right

@"Alex Divine" said:
Although sometimes I wonder if I was doing better with the Cambridge Packets. It really helped me to see pattern recognition on. The argument people tend to leverage against them is that because they are categorized you lose your ability to differentiate on the real test.

Trust is probably somewhere in the middle and the fact the packets were grouped type and by difficulty made it easier to kind of get the confidence on the basic shit before jumping right in. Oh well... Friday night and I'm bored. Wait... It's Tuesday!!!

Yeah, those are great to start off with, but I think once we're comfortable with the different game types it's important to switch to drilling actual sections. That way we are forced to ID games, and we also learn to deal with the spread in difficulty. Shifting from a 5 minute 1 star game to a 12 minute 5 star game is a mental and emotional roller coaster that is important to know how to navigate. Drilling by type and difficulty loses a lot of the difficulties of the real thing.

Just to jump in on the original question, I did 1 section a day. When I tried to do more than that, I inevitably found myself cutting corners.

As far as those weird old games, they're incredibly valuable, just for very different reasons. On the new tests, there are lots of new and unprecedented game types. These old games are our best practice for learning how to deal with a game we haven't seen before. They might be good to skip actually, in order to save them for when our LG skills are sharper and we have a stronger foundation to approach a new game type from. Just stay calm, and be creative. They're not hard, we just can't be mechanical.

Alex

@"Cant Get Right" said:

@"Alex Divine" said:
Although sometimes I wonder if I was doing better with the Cambridge Packets. It really helped me to see pattern recognition on. The argument people tend to leverage against them is that because they are categorized you lose your ability to differentiate on the real test.

Trust is probably somewhere in the middle and the fact the packets were grouped type and by difficulty made it easier to kind of get the confidence on the basic shit before jumping right in. Oh well... Friday night and I'm bored. Wait... It's Tuesday!!!

Yeah, those are great to start off with, but I think once we're comfortable with the different game types it's important to switch to drilling actual sections. That way we are forced to ID games, and we also learn to deal with the spread in difficulty. Shifting from a 5 minute 1 star game to a 12 minute 5 star game is a mental and emotional roller coaster that is important to know how to navigate. Drilling by type and difficulty loses a lot of the difficulties of the real thing.

Just to jump in on the original question, I did 1 section a day. When I tried to do more than that, I inevitably found myself cutting corners.

As far as those weird old games, they're incredibly valuable, just for very different reasons. On the new tests, there are lots of new and unprecedented game types. These old games are our best practice for learning how to deal with a game we haven't seen before. They might be good to skip actually, in order to save them for when our LG skills are sharper and we have a stronger foundation to approach a new game type from. Just stay calm, and be creative. They're not hard, we just can't be mechanical.

Thank you so much Josh! Always appreciate your sagely advice