Beyond Frustrated - Logic Games

csharm002

Overall, I am not loving anything about the LSAT right now, but LG is leaving me hopeless. I'm taking the June test and have recently resumed studying after a semester filled with the effects from a family emergency, being an athlete, and taking 18 credits. RC is actually my best section right now, where I'm hovering around an average of -5. I decided to tackle LG as my next section to work on since many say it's the easiest and quickest to fix and I just do not have the time to fix LR. However, I quickly realized it was not going to come easy to me at all. I've read the discussion board, looked at forums, and even listened to the 7sage podcast for help, and while I've tried to do what many of these places suggest (practice endlessly until you recognize game types and get more comfortable) I'm not making any progress and am left in a discouraged heap at my desk. Does anyone have any advice or methods that worked for them? I'm truly at a loss and honestly feel stupid that I cannot fix what others resolve so easily. Thank you so much.

tparkkkkkkk

Maybe don't take the June test and postpone to a later date? If you don't feel comfortable in a practice environment, you're definitely not gonna feel comfortable in a testing environment. Take more time to regather your thoughts and keep drilling the games while watching JY's explanations.

canihazJD

The thing people leave out when they say games is the easiest most reliable score increase, etc. is that it will never feel like it. Also note that that doesn't mean you will be knocking out -0s by June either. It's "easy" because literally all you have to do is hammer the games until you own them, sub in another game and do it again. Follow the prescribed process and they will get easier. It seems difficult because you cant perceive the improvements happening. Its not like learning biochem, where I can cram my amino acids until I can draw them out from memory, giving me instant indication of improvement. Here, we are incrementally building neural networks we didn't need before, making them more robust and efficient. You cant feel your synaptic efficacy increasing, or a dendrite growing. You can't perceive your brain noticing, "holy shit, that one tiny neural circuit that does pattern recognition is overloaded... wtf is going on??? I'd better make that thing bigger."

I like to use a running analogy (sorry for everyone whose suffered through this before)... when I run, I can't feel my vo2 max improving, or my CV system getting stronger. I don't notice my sarcomeres popping so my muscle fibers grow back stronger. All I know is that it sucks... a lot. And I wish I were better at it, and I wish I were doing something else right now. But if I follow best practices–quality training, adequate rest, etc. and have faith in the process, I know that I will ultimately get better at it.

You just have to put in the work, have faith in the process, and not give up. Anyone can -0 games. Anyone. If you don't, it is simply because you gave up too soon. Like any other performance... running a marathon, playing an instrument, excellence won't likely come quickly, or easily, but it will come if you keep at it. It's difficult when we allow a timeline as opposed to our scoring to call our test date. But if you take this test without a consistent -0 on games you are basically volunteering to take a lower score.

vgillia1

How long have you been repetitively practicing LG from practice exams? For my first exam I only did a single practice exam before hand, and even though I thought I knew everything to know about LG, I was completely lost on the exam. However, from just 2 weeks of doing practice exams every other day, I have noticed my LG drastically increase to an average of 0 to -3 under time constraints. Two weeks prior, getting to all four games wasn't even a conceivable thought I had, and I was getting around -10 to -12 under time constraints.

I think the biggest thing for me was blind reviewing and really thinking about exactly how to diagram it without time constraints. Try nailing the diagramming without time constraints during blind review, and once you get back to another practice exam it is highly likely you will see a game you spent a lot of time blind reviewing and automatically recognizing how to go about it (or adjust your techniques to go about it). Once you get to a point where you can answer every question right without time constraints, then try to focus on your time. At this stage, if you are still have great difficulty with time, you should flag/skip all "substitute a rule" questions (typically 1 a section), and come back at the end. These are time traps. Any question you come across that you are taking more than 30 seconds (give or take) to understand, skip and come back to at the end. Any game you read that you find great difficulty in trying to process how to diagram, skip it and come back at the end. One extremely hard game means there is typically a much easier game that you can quickly finish, then come back to the difficult game and try to answer, and worst case guess (and definitely blind review it).

Ultimately, the two main things that really helped me were 1) Re-diagramming all 4 games during blind review while not timed (no matter whether I felt like I did them wrong or right), then watching the 4 videos to see how 7sage diagrammed it, and watching the videos to review any questions I got wrong. Repetitively doing this on every practice test til I got to a point where I don't get any diagrams or questions wrong during blind review. Then focusing on time, which mastering diagramming (and being able to instantly spot inferences) naturally helped with time 2) Knowing when to skip a question, or even a game, and coming back to it at the end.

Side note - do you have any advice for RC? I am awful at it and can never come up with solid low res's and I'm never able to figure out the main points haha

csharm002

@vgillia1 Wow! Thank you so much for your response. Reading it actually made me feel a lot better and the way you explained it makes a lot of sense. I've been doing LG problem sets for the last few weeks, but I haven't repetitively done PTs, which I've been meaning to get to. I think my main problem is struggling to make a complete diagram with the information given in the prompt prior to answering any questions. I always seem to leave something out or assume a rule that doesn't exist.

For RC, I actually started out with a -18 on my diagnostic. When I began studying again back in April (took a 2 and a half month hiatus) I decided to change my methods. Originally I was not focusing hard enough on the passage and by the time I was done reading, I'd be lost and have to read again. I know you're not allowed to mouth things while taking the LSAT, but I started to "say" what I was reading. I'm not mouthing anything, but you know that in-between thing where you're kinda talking with your tongue and mouth closed? IDK...it sounds weird, but it has helped me focus more on the massage and grasp the content. Don't get me wrong, I still occasionally have to go back and find something, but I also try to anticipate the point of the passage and the arguments. When it comes to the questions, the majority of the ones I've gotten incorrect have been ones I've skipped. Just like you told me, skipping harder ones and allowing yourself to get the low hanging fruit is an advantage. Almost every passage has the same kind of questions. Main point, things the author would most agree with, some reasoning, etc. If you know what to look for, it will increase your time and understanding. I know RC is a pain in the butt to drill, but you'll see the patterns and get quicker. I hope this helps!

andrew.rsn

I can completely attest to @vgillia1 and @canihazJD. When I first started Logic Games I felt complete overwhelmed, but stuck with it. After going through the curriculum and doing basically every LG multiple times, suddenly I noticed I was performing at a whole other level. But I didn't feel these improvement happened, it was very gradual.

I think one of the most important aspect to perfecting logic games ( or any section) is building habits. if you just do one section, don't BR it, get a -10, and then move on frustrated. You're digging a hole that's going to be very difficult to climb out of.

It may be a good idea for you to focus on one game type at a time until you feel you really have it down. start with sequencing as generally they're the easiest, and do that game at least 3-5 (or 10) times until you can diagram it with your eyes closed and come up with every inference there is quickly. Even if you just completed the game, doing again over and over again will help to build those habits. Then when you encounter another sequencing game of a similar type, you do the same exact process, and before you know it you'll find yourself nailing those games your first time.

After sequencing, tackle in and out games, then grouping, etc. It's also vital that you have a really good grasp of conditional logic and can quickly build conditional chains, and a vast majority of the games rely on this.

Good luck!

brookegojazz

Send me a message! "Foolproofing" isn't a method that super helped me in the long run, but my tutor helped me find a method that doesn't rely on inferences and memorization techniques. For me, it's been about a method that is more foolproof, instead of foolproofing the games, if that makes sense. It revolves around how to represent rules instead of inferences I may or may not see and also addresses small errors, anxiety/weird games, etc. It's helped A TON! I'm not perfect but as long as I stick to the method I am pretty consistently -1 on LG (down from about -4/-6 and where I was stuck for about a year unless I just did games incessantly.

***Also, I agree with what is said above. You need a SOLID SOLID grasp of conditional logic/basic game boards as well! That will bridge a lot of gaps, but sounds like you might already be there

vgillia1

@csharm002 Thank you so much! I assume its probably similar to LG where you're bound to get better with practice, but I just hate RC so much I can never get myself to practice aside from preptests haha. Anyway, with LG, I know it's tedious and can be extremely frustration, but if you keep practicing with preptests you will naturally get faster at overall games given you will become much faster at identifying rules you've seen, just with different subjects and minor changes. One prep book I used (while it wasn't that great for LG) put it in great terms with an analogy that applies to all sections of the LSAT: a rider and an elephant. Basically right now you're probably consciously thinking about all the rules, and trying to remember what each rule means when you're looking at games. With time and practice, you will be training your unconscious and it'll come to you automatically. "Our conscious mind is the rider. It gets all the notoriety and attention because it is what we most notice and because it "seems" to be in control. But once that timer starts, your unconscious - your instincts and habits for what to think about and how - takes over." So in other words, with a ton of practice you will get much better just from the fact your brain will naturally recognize games appearing similar to prior games you've done. If you even have a slight understanding of conditionals and how games work, practice will be the biggest indicator of what you don't understand and should focus on. At first, I was completely overwhelmed and shocked when Id watch videos reviewing diagrams not understanding how the instructor was able to automatically get inferences that seemed so far fetched, and how he was able to do it immediately. Now I've come to realize almost every game that is a part of particular game type is identical in its diagramming process, including how to figure out their inferences. Also, keep in mind, there are typically only a couple major inference(s) per game, so if you can figure that out move on to the questions and don't overthink the diagram expecting endless inferences or trying to make up inferences that don't exist. Look for connections between rules (Ive found this to be where most inferences lie). In sequencing games look for positions certain elements can't go. Look for elements that are limited to only a few spots. Pay attention to when you should be making more than one diagram. Example: if in a double sequencing game a rule says something like "Theresa performs Thursday for one of the two days, but not both."(PT64-game 3 has something of this nature) and there is no other rule that has someone narrowed down this much, then make 2 diagrams to represent that and the rest of the rules will typically fall into place on those 2 diagrams (while this may not appear as an inference, it's a trick the LSAT does to see if you will make 2 diagrams, or make 1, and thus making the questions much harder and ultimately more time consuming if you only do 1 diagram). Also if you just can't figure out what the inference(s) are, and you just can't seem to answer the questions confidently based on your diagram and/or are taking too long, this is when you skip that section and return to it later. Another thing to focus on is when there are strings of letters being clumped together (ex: "F is before X but after Y": Y-F-X (F and X can't go in 1, Y and F can't go in the last spot) ... pay close attention to rules such as this because it'll typically limit where exactly it can be placed and most of the other rules will narrow it down even more/revolve around it. Rules such as these dictate games.) If you see games with almost all conditionals this is a sign it is an in-out game. All these things Ive said is not from me memorizing any of this (which is what I originally did and it didn't work), its from endless practice. Good luck! and thank you again for the RC advice!

sarakimmel

@csharm002 you actually are allowed to mouth (and even mutter, trust me) during the test, just not speak. I had a rather drawn out discussion with several others after last years' FLEX tests, and although some proctors might say something if they hear you, most will not interfere. Something to consider, FWIW, as I know I find it incredibly helpful to keep actively engaged.

csharm002

@sarakimmel Thank you so much for letting me know! You're right, it is incredibly helpful.

GoatAdvocate_0L_SLS

@sarakimmel said:
@csharm002 you actually are allowed to mouth (and even mutter, trust me) during the test, just not speak. I had a rather drawn out discussion with several others after last years' FLEX tests, and although some proctors might say something if they hear you, most will not interfere. Something to consider, FWIW, as I know I find it incredibly helpful to keep actively engaged.

I somehow developed the habit of describing my LG process aloud (not too loud tho) during my studying, although I had never noticed because I was always WAY too engrossed in what was in front of me. When I took the April FLEX, a proctor stopped me to tell me that narrating was not allowed, which was incredibly disruptive because my screen went blank AND THE CLOCK WAS STILL RUNNING. Very stressful. I don't know if that was supposed to happen, but I lost valuable time as a result.

So, if you develop the same habit, be cautious about vocalizing. I think whispering is far safer and it's what I've started doing. While I'm sure it depends on the proctor, test day is not a good day to gamble.

sarakimmel

@GoatAdvocate I am SO sorry that happened to you. They can definitely be strict about vocalization, but they shouldn't have interrupted your screen during your test to tell you that. I lost more than 5 minutes from my October FLEX, so I know how devastating it can be when the proctor interferes with your rhythm and takes valuable time from you, it can throw off the entire rest of the test, I know it did for me.