Fool-Proofing Games

ColinTurner610

Hey everyone, I'm starting to Fool Proof games to really get a better feel for these. Do you suggest I start at 1 and go to 35 that way or should I go by easiest Sequencing, In/Out, Grouping etc. and fool proof by those groups and then work my way up from easiest to hard? I feel like the first way is better but any feedback would be great. Thanks everyone!

canihazJD

A lot of the early games are kind of weird, and not representative IMO. Not that they won't help you but I'd start higher. Maybe I'd start with the ones in the CC, then go back and do the rest of the games from the PTs they were sourced from, then work up. No real wrong way... you have to try each type eventually, and you'll end up tweaking your approach as you see what gives you more problems.

LOWERCASE EVERYTHING

yeah, if you've finished the cc for games, i think starting at 1-35 is good. (and add on to your fool-proof list if you encounter a difficult game in the pts that you take). i personally had printed out 1 copy of each game (to save trees), and put them inside binder protective sheets in a 3-ring binder. i never wrote on the original sheets, and only did work on my scratch papers.

now that the exam is digital, this was good practice for working on scratch papers and not writing on the original sheets (i.e. the digital screen on the exam). i don't highlight anything during games, so i didn't really need to practice that.

i suppose making problem sets of the games and working directly from your digital screen might be able to mimic the real experience as much as possible. but i personally did not want to look at my screen all the time, especially for fool-proofing which demanded a lot of time from me.

this post might also be helpful. just stay away from categorizing games: "if you do, it will negatively influence your work since you will know going in to use a chart or to sequence and group rather than just deducing what needs to be done."

https://7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/2737/logic-games-attack-strategy/p1

happy studying!

noonawoon

I second that you should focus on newer games if you're short on time specifically. If you're taking the LSAT in like a year, starting 1-35 is totally fine. Newer games are a lot more representative of what you're likely to get. For one reason, they have the dreaded rule substitution that begins with PT 62 I believe. For another, they tend to have more challenging rules.

canihazJD

@noonawoon said:
I second that you should focus on newer games if you're short on time specifically. If you're taking the LSAT in like a year, starting 1-35 is totally fine. Newer games are a lot more representative of what you're likely to get. For one reason, they have the dreaded rule substitution that begins with PT 62 I believe. For another, they tend to have more challenging rules.

Excellent point on the rule sub questions. For example, what is widely considered to have been the easiest LG section from the November Flex had TWO rule substitution questions. Definitely caught me off guard as the general consensus has been to expect "middle of the road", but I think with the shredder game last month, and some substitution questions and harder sets this month, LSAC is getting comfortable with the format and data, allowing them to broaden the range of material. Even the apparently loose scale from march and proliferation of high scores support this somewhat... hopefully not implying that a tightening of scoring scale is pending.