Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.2K All Categories
- 27.1K LSAT
- 16.5K General
- 5.1K Logical Reasoning
- 1.3K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 72 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 9 Scholarships
- 193 Test Center Reviews
- 2K Study Groups
- 108 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.4K Specific LSAT Dates
- 7 June 2024 LSAT
- 1 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 41 October 2023 LSAT
- 12 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 1 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.8K Not LSAT
- 3.9K Law School Admissions
- 11 Law School Explained
- 9 Forum Rules
- 580 Technical Problems
- 275 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Logic Games, You Bast***
LSATHopeful-2
Alum Member
Hey y'all
I'm going to retake in September, and for the last two weeks I've been chipping away at Logic games from PT 1-15. However, I've seen marginal, if any, improvements. When I foolproof them, I can get perfect on the entire section with 10 minutes left, but the moment I see a fresh set I go -6 to -9. I planned on spending a total of a month straight on LG, but my patience and determination is waivering.
Now that I've given you background, please read my questions: 1. Any particular LG sets you think will help me for the most recent tests? 2. Should I go back and do the LG portion of the CC? (haven't done it since last summer) 3. How to maximize what I learn from the Fool Proof Method (i.e. what questions do you ask yourself/what do you observe about the LG set)
Thank you
Comments
Hey Hopeful,
Make sure to stay hopeful no matter how hard it seems!
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things" - Shawshank Redemption
Onwards to any advice I can offer:
1) I think older games will help you with the newer tests and the most recent games as well. If I'd have to guess from what my many friends and acquaintances have told me about the new tests they've taken there are without a doubt some repeats from the tests before the 30s. Not literal repeats, but maybe instead of clowns in cars it's grouping pies in bakeries. I wish I could be more specific, but I'm not sure there are any particular set of games that are the best to do to prepare for game day. Just as many as you can because even the older having been making a comeback in some permutation. I know, not a very helpful or satisfactory answer.
2) Yes, if you are having any trouble at all certainly go back and re-watch the CC on games. It's a great refresher and for the hours you put in, I think it will be worth it. The games lessons tend to be pretty short and to the point anyways, so you won't lose too much time re-watching them.
3) Fool proofing and maximizing your results... When you've done enough --- and I know you've said you've done up to PT15 --- are you starting to notice that a lot of the games repeat inferences? For example, when the out slot fills up on an in-and-out game, you know the rest of the pieces are then forced into the in-group. Well through fool proofing we want to build up memorizing these inferences so when we see a new game, it's not a new game at all
Of course, there are some exceptions; games that are neither sequencing or grouping, but still for the majority we want to internalize these inferences so when we are doing new games we don't have to spend as much time thinking about those inferences. This will give us more time for the oddball games.
It took me a long time fool proofing (which I am still doing, and re-doing......) before I finally started to see new games and be like I got this! Actually, just last week I finished a section I had never seen under time! Needless to say I was almost brought to tears. I still suck at games, generally. However, that little bit of hope was proof that this method was working.
My advice is to really keep grinding away. Redo the games even after you think you've mastered them. Every game is like an orange and theres usually always a lil' drip of juice left to squeeze out. Be it just learning to diagram neater, smarter, different. Experiment on older games you've fool proofed already and practice answering with making less hypotheticals. That's definitely been something that has helped me.
Also, when your BR your games write out hypos for every question. Really get good at this stuff. I'm starting to find out that a lot of the problem you're having (because I am having it too) is mental. We see new games and we freak out. Chances are you've done a game very similar where there were 8 cars and 8 people instead of 7 boats and people.
And just to re-iterate. Go back through those games you've already fool proofed if you're still finding yourself having issues with new material. 45 games in should have you feeling pretty confident going forward. Just keep redoing them again and again. You'll get there.
Some games I did 15 times. And watched the video 25. Sometimes that's just what it takes!
Good luck
Stay hopeful!
Foolproof all of them. I'm not kidding - I bombed LG in December, so I decided to focus almost exclusively on that section. There were some in the 40s and 50s I skipped because they were all straightforward and had an "easy" rating for 7sage, but otherwise I did almost every single set of games the LSAT has ever produced. Just took June today, and I breezed through the LG with a full 4 minutes left at the end. There's no substitute for sheer practice and repetition, and LG can absolutely be conquered; even the miscellaneous games are a breeze if you crush the simple sequencing/grouping games with plenty of time left. Worst case scenario you just brute force the miscellaneous, and if you have 12-15 minutes for it, you'll definitely get at least 4/6 or 7, and probably more than that.
Quick question for those fool proofing LG's... Do y'all fool proof one game at a time, or do you fool proof doing the whole four games, then focus on each game? Does it matter?
I do PT by PT and game by game. So I'll do PT1 G1, PT1 G2, PT1 G3, etc. And I just move through the games that way. I also kind of do all 4 games at the same time to an extent. I make sure I get each game down "under time" before returning to it. In the meantime, though, I will work on the next game in order.
I mean, I definitely think if you have the time for it, fool proofing every game probably isn't a bad idea, especially if LG is your weakest section. I plan to at least get eyes on all of them and go through them. Especially those odd ball ones!
Anyways, looks like you killed it today! Congrats!
Any new scary games on today's administration?
The most important aspect of fool proofing, shared by @"Alex Divine" . The idea behind fool proofing is that we brute force inferences, strategies, game setups, etc into our heads and instincts. I keep a running list of any inference I miss. For example, the very first inference I wrote months ago came back to bite me today and that is "Whenever you have a not-both rule, write it in the 'out' space". Luckily, elsewhere in that section I honed in on another very important repeating inference "Sequencing with subcategories: 'no category may be consecutive' could mean it appears every other space".
I still have the same experience of shock as you but it is happening less and less. Games is my worst section and it drives me crazy sometimes. Sure it's the most learnable, but there is the least room for error. One slip up on one rule can cost you 4-7 points. Singular errors or misunderstandings don't seem to burn me on LR and RC like they do in LG. That is why it's so important to focus on the innards of these games. IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO SIMPLY REPEAT THE GAME UNTIL YOU GET IT -0 AND UNDER TIME. We need to understand why a "chart" is the best representation here instead of a simple pure grouping setup. Or what that inference actually means. "Oh. There's one 'out' space and one 'in" space left and we still need to place A-->B? Well that means A is going out and B is coming in".
Focusing and studying these internal workings of the games is the best way, in my opinion, to "start seeing the matrix" like JY says.
I think Alex did a great job of answering your questions. I will only add that I think fool-proofing 1-35 is the best practice for those struggling with games. Also, we gotta do all the nitty-gritty backend studying that I mentioned above.
Just keep pushing! I bet you've learned more than you realize during this time and if you study with the right effort, a breakthrough is coming your way.
@"Alex Divine" got you bro, seems like I'm doing the same thing as you. Thanks again for your help boss, you the man.
Of course! Just working my way through the same struggle. I can't wait to be able to feel confident about all games and just walk in and kill that test. One day soon, hopefully.
@"Alex Divine" likewise man, best of luck.
Yet, be strong in the simple sequence and group games is important though. You need save time for harder game and/weird game.
Hmmm. I say: "All of them"!! Sorry, but it's true old weird games are making a comeback....
If you are not good at certain game types, I think you should. I went back to In/Out Games portion of the CC and drilled many In/Out Games. I think I can do any types of new In/Out Games.
If LG is your weakest section, I think you should video record yourself doing a game and figure out what you are doing wrong and what could have done under timed conditions. I noticed that I sometimes skipped diagramming a rule when there are so many questions or misread questions. So I now read really carefully and spend time upfront.
Obviously I'm going to have to agree with my buddy here. However, something I should have mentioned that's really been helping me is taking notes as as re-watch JY's videos. I find I often have the same habits (we all do) and am prone to making the same mistakes. So taking notes has been a big help.
Also when you are reviewing your games while watching JY's explanations really make sure you are understanding every aspect. I used to let a few things slide here and there, and ultimately would still be able to get the game right. Yet, I could have been more efficient and had more time for harder games in the set.
That's the damn secret man. These newer odd games (At least the ones I've seen) aren't that they are hard, but they can take way more time. So if you can get quick, efficient, and good with the easier games, your chances of having enough confidence and stride (also underrated) to finish the oddball game(s) will increase ten fold.
I've found that the new miscellaneous games (which are very similar to the miscellaneous games from older LSATs) are difficult to visualize/diagram, but the questions are relatively easier to answer. But again, if you can manage to leave 12 or more minutes for that game by speeding through the other 3 accurately, you'll be set. Although the June LSAT didn't actually have any crazy curveball games, so I felt slightly ripped off lol.
I did the latter (doing all four games, watching the JY videos for each one I didn't get perfect, then re-doing the whole set a few days or a week later). I wanted to mirror test conditions as much as possible, so I always did a full set of logic games from a given PT, marking an approximate time at the top of each individual game - if I ran out of time at the end, then I marked that at the top, continued until I finished, and marked how much total time that game took. I kept track of all my scores and times for each attempt in an excel spreadsheet (it's the Cambridge LSAT logic games tracker, you can get it from their website for free).
Personally, I don't think it really matters that you hit the JY suggested target time for each game - many people are way better at sequencing games than grouping or in/out games, or vice versa, so you might be able to finish a certain game in 5 minutes that has a recommended time of 8, but it takes you 9 minutes for a "7 minute game." The most important thing is that you consistently get all 4 games within the 35 minute span.
wow thanks for the replies guys, in the coming weeks I'll refer back to your posts for encouragement and guidance. LETSGOO.
@dantlee14 yeah I've been wanting to do that, just kind of hesitant because of the whole marking of the time and what not, but I think that's a great way to go about it.
Well put! I also agree with JY's times only being suggestions and overall, finishing in under 35 should be your aim.