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
- 11 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
- 2 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.8K Not LSAT
- 3.9K Law School Admissions
- 11 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 580 Technical Problems
- 275 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Fool Proof Method NOT helping.
stephenharrelson08
Free Trial Member
For 3-4 months I have been doing the fool proof method. After a redo or two, I can perfect a game, getting all the questions right and under my time limit. If I ever see thay game again, I am have the same sucess. So far I have probably completed close to 30-35 games of each type. The problem is, whenever I see new games, I am very unsucessful. I work extremely slow and I usally end up getting 4-5 correct in 15 minutes, which is unexceptable. I am getting extrmely frustrated because I have placed a lot of time and effort into the fool proof method, and its not helping me when it comes to new games, which is obviously going to be a HUGE problem on the actual LSAT. I’m starting to feel like my dreams of law school are going down the toliet.
Comments
Where does most of your time end up on a new game? In the set-up of the game?
Also, have you tried to look past the "pieces" of the game and into the mechanics? Start trying to see how the whole game works more broadly. Specifics don't mean much. We don't care about piano players and the like. What we care about is stuff like;
This is what you need to be internalizing. Stuff like that appears on almost every section of LG the LSAT has ever had. Of course this is one of the easiest inferences we can make, but this is at the heart of LG. It is knowing how pieces and rules interact, and that if we ever see a similar rule, it will act the same way.
Some games I have had an extremely difficult time setting up. However, most games I have been able to set up. I am pretty good at diagramming the rules and making inferneces like you listed above. My trouble comes in on the actual questions. I have trouble putting it all togrher and elminating answers in the amount of time i’m alloted.
If each game had pretty much the same structure and inferneces, I can see where this method would be helpful. However, my trouble comes in on brand new games where each set of inferences is unique and interact with each other in a new, unique way. In the amount of time alloted, its extremely difficult to put it all together and start hammering out answers. It takes one-two redos, after getting farmilar with the game, before I can do that.
Its extremely, extremely frustrating, and i’m starting to feel hopeless
Interesting, I brute force LG pretty hard. I will always plug and play as it were. Some questions this approach doesn't work and it involves a more detailed understanding of the game. I'm not sure I can be much help, because it seems the way I approach the games is not the best way for you. Maybe @"Alex Divine" @akistotle @Sami or some of the other star members have some advice?
My advice is to simply not eliminate all the ACs. For some questions, it's impossible not to brute force. For others, it's unwise to. For example: "If A is in slot 3, which of the following must be true." Plug A into slot 3, look at your game board--maybe D must go into 5--and then scan through the ACs to find what you already know must be true.
I got to the point where I wouldn't really need to check over logic games, because I knew there was only the one correct answer, which I had arrived at before I looked at the ACs.
In other words, answer the question before you even see the ACs. Again, in some cases it's impossible not to brute force. But by not brute forcing every question, you'll "bank" enough time for the questions you do need to
I actually had a very similar issue up until recently. I was fool proofing tons of games, and getting better at those games, but I sucked anytime I had to do a new game.
The fact that you say you can nail down any game after 2 attempts tells me that you weren't fool proofing quite the right way. Especially if you've done that many games and still don't feel like you've improved. They call it the "fool proof" method for a reason
Some of it is that we sometimes get sloppy, internalize the answers, and don't work to really commit the inferences and important key aspects of the games we fool proof to memory. If you play a game, watch JY's explanation, and then can re-do it perfectly (and do this for every and any game) then you're probably just memorizing the answers/inferences but not exactly how they come together or interact. For one, it will certainly keep you from improving. Some games are so difficult that even the best of us at LG can't nail them in two attempts. I know there are some games that have taken me well over 5-10x to actually nail down properly. Don't let the -0/time score fool you into thinking you've successfully fool proofed a game. Remember, one of the steps is feeling like you own the game. Feeling like you own the game entails that you truly understand all the moving parts and how they all come together.
Last, you need to make sure you have also working to develop a consistent process on games. For example, make sure you read with your pencil down, check out the first question (if it's the standard acceptable situation Q you can glean a lot about what your set up will look like), make sure to diagram neatly so you can cover the rules up with your hands when they're spent, etc. Process is everything when it comes to games!
Think of logic games as being able to re-build an engine. Each engine (game) is a bit different, but all the parts more or less work and come together in the same way. If you just memorize how to re-build an engine without understanding what each part does and how it interacts with the other parts, you're going to have trouble as soon as you come across any engine that is different from what you memorized.
Is your trouble with all games? Just hard/odd ball ones? Are you able to do new one layer sequencing games without trouble? What about basic in-out-grouping games?
p.s. Your hopes of law school don't have to be flushed down the toilet. Logic games are something everyone can improve on. They're lauded as "the most learnable section of the LSAT." And trust me, I'm living proof that you can improve once you start fool proofing the right way. One day, you'll turn the page to a new section and everything will feel like it has "clicked."
LG is very mechanical and step by step it's possible to figure out what's going on and to help you improve!
I was having similar issues. This helps. Alex Devine, thanks for the ever-thoughtful posts!
Let me list out my process for each new game (assuming this is one that I can set up properly):
- Diagramm rules and list as many inferneces as possible
- Go to the questions: Freeze up and not able to connect the inferences to eliminate answers. And thus end up screwing up, taking 15 minutes to answer questions and only getting a couple correct
- Do the game 5 more times. Each time the inferences and the interworkings of the game become clearer and clearer. By the 6th and final time doing the game, I have usally all the inferneces down and can conplete all questions correct in under 7 minutes. Also, I never watch the explanations on this site or any others. I can figure out the game naturally, but it takes a time or two. Thats my biggest problem.
By the way, is that pretty much what the fool proof method is suppose to be? I know it reccomends doing each game 10 time, but, even though I only do it 6, is that pretty much the right process? If not, what am I doing wrong?
I mean, something isn't working out with this. It's good that you try to figure out how to do the games yourself, but you should absolutely utilize JY's free explanations.
Where did you learn to diagram and actually do games? There me be a problem with the actual method you're using.
I used the Logic Games Bible. I watched one today, and I noticed that we both came up with all the inital inferences on that particular game. My biggest issue is freezing up on the questions. The first time around, I dont have the inferneced memorized in the short time span and I have trouble connecting them all. Whats your process on handling questions?
@stephenharrelson08 Do you write down the inferences at all?
Oh yes! After diagramming the rules, I try to pop out all the inferneces I can make out. My trouble comes in with juggling all of them in my head when it comes to answering questions.
Hmm you shouldn't have to juggle them around. Use the questions as ques to which inference matters. If the question says;
You should immediately be thinking about only inferences that exclude birds from the forest. And look for chains, the inferences will always be a step deeper.
If H then /G
If J then H
So therefore J -> H -> /G which equals J -> /G
So when we answer that question we know that as soon as J goes in G gets kicked out.
Oh man. I started out with the LG bible and I feel like what you're struggling with is where that method let me down too. I like some of their methods, but I felt like I would end up with like half a page of simple inferences written down and didn't understand really how they all connected with each other or how to properly apply them. I really think that you may be having a problem because of the bible method. JY's notations are way simpler and more efficient, and that is absolutely crucial with LG. Also, JY does the method of filling out multiple "game boards" which Powerscore does not do. Learning how to do that cut my time on games down by probably half.
I know this may not be what you were hoping to hear, but I think it's the Powerscore method holding you back. It's good and I still use some of the notations from it, but overall 7sage's LG methods are really superior IMO. The foolproof method is how you described it, except step 1 is try the game on your own, step 2 is watch the 7sage explanation, and then 3+ is to repeat the game until you own it. It's very important to watch the explanation videos. 7sage's approach is really different from Powerscore's and, again IMO, is a much better method. You can really learn so much from the 7sage LG explanations and they are free! It's absolutely a resource you should try. Their YouTube page is here and it has all the explanations plus a prep test proctor which is great: (Edit - linking didn't really work, their user name on YouTube is 7sagelsat. Check out their page)
I think that might be your problem. Powerscore works for some people, but it clearly isn't working for you. Try using the 7Sage videos or signing up for a starter course. If you can afford it, it's worth it. I'd pay $179 all day everyday if it meant finally being able to nail games down. You can also check out the free videos on YouTube and learn quite a bit from them.
Yes I already wrote out my long explanation but also if you can afford the starter course, the lessons on logic in general from 7sage absolutely changed the game for me. I had a lot of trouble with bi-conditionals that 7sage cleared up and went so much more in depth on conditional logic that is crucial for the games. Just reading the PS bible wasn't nearly enough for me, and your struggle with LG sounds really similar to what happened to me too. Totally understand if money is an issue, but 7sage is an incredible value.
I recommend signing up for 7Sage (Starter course): https://7sage.com/enroll/
I honestly don't think you should foolproof with PowerScore's method. Free explanations are great, but in order to master LG, you need a strong logic foundation.
As @kimmy_m66 said, you'll get to a point where you don't have to look at all the answer choices for some questions.
No problem! Trust me, I've been there... Games have always been my kryptonite.
All the 7 sage logic games explanations are free online. I would start using them regardless of whether you get the starter course and do the core curriculum.
Additionally, it might be best to try to master the games by type first. This happens naturally for most of us. I found myself picking up on linear single sequencing games or whatever they are called fairly quickly. In out games and double layer games followed for me with chart type games and more complex grouping games being slowest. If there isn't some natural progression, you can force it by only working on one game type for a while. Once you have mastered each type you can then start doing the games not knowing their type.
It is advisable to skip that step if you can since it makes you have to relearn how to identify the games inatead of picking that skill up organically. But it could help you get past your block.
Edited for accuracy in light of Dillion's comment.
Just specifying that only the LG explanations are available for free!
Absolutely, my mistake.
Focus on the other sections. You can have one weak section, not a big deal.
Well he said he is getting 4-5 correct on each game attempt which takes him15 minutes. We'll go with 5. Therefore in 30 minutes he would have 10 right on two sections. Say it was a 24 question section and each game was about 6 questions. He would then guess on the remaining 12 questions getting about 2 right. So he would miss 12 on one section. Maybe 10 if he got 2 more in the remainimg 5 minutes. Even with perfect scores on the other sections that would maximize his score at about a 170. However, let's assume he misses a couple more. Each miss is taking him further down into the 160s. And the distinction between a 160 and a 165 or a 165 and a 172 matters because the Top 14 schools in th country offer dramatically higher odds of getting a big law job if that were what he is after, offer dramatically better LRAPs if he is going into public interest and taking out debt, and because the power of having an application which can get you into top schools can draw full scholarship offers from slightly lower ranked schools.
The other thing with this one weak section strategy is that if you had to pick one, it shouldn't be games. People start out worst at games. I certainly did. But, usually with enough study the games section becomes sort of like math in that if you get an answer you know it is the right answer. You hardly have any mistakes. That is why people using the foolproofing method routinely eventually get new games section scores down to an average between -1 and -0. It's a lot harder to do that with LR and RC unless you start out almost perfect on those sections. So if games are your weak section, you likely don't have a nearly perfect section like all the people who have turned games into a strength.