LG trouble

Aiesha G.

While I am making progress in the LG section, I am seeing that there is a pattern I do not like. It is an extremely sporadic pattern. Either I understand the game and get all the questions right (sometimes miss only one) or completely misunderstand the game and get most questions wrong. There isn't a very strong correlation between game type for me. For example, I don't seem to bomb matching games more than sequencing etc. It's literally if I understand the task well, I answer correctly and if I don't I am guessing I misrepresent the diagram or the rules in such a way that it nearly throws me off the entire game. Is this a basic diagramming/notating problem that I just need to address? Maybe re-read the basics of LG, or use another resource to bridge that gap?

I am also thinking maybe it doesn't make sense to time myself. When I blind review LG, of course I do a lot better. But if I can't get them accurate under in times conditions then it doesn't make much sense to time myself yet right? Naturally, I tend to do worse even on games i do understand under the time pressure. =( usually its because of a missed inference or incorrect representation of a rule that I get correct when I am not being timed.

bSM45LSAT

This is kind of similar to me, either a game feels naturally intuitive and I just blaze through, or am literally stuck like a deer in headlights.

I think the only way to overcome this is the fool proof method. Every game you even slightly struggle, watch JY's explanations, do the game again, do it tomorrow, and then do it in a week.

Eventually, and I haven't reached this point completely, but it'll all start to come together and you'll enjoy doing logic games.

I've done maybe about 50-60 games already just through the course curriculum and I feel pretty damn confident when I see a new game.

I think the key is when you see a game that looks really wack or different, just sit there, take a deep breath, and try your best to logically think and map out a game board. What I've realized sometimes is for games that seem impossible, the questions are usually easier. So rather than sitting there and just being afraid to write anything down, you should think about the best way to visually represent the game, make some key inferences, then move into the questions.

Pacifico

Not sure if you've read this or not, but this is the guide I wrote a couple months ago for how to approach LG and track your progress: http://7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/2737/logic-games-attack-strategy

It's basically a scaled down version of 7Sage's fool proof method with some subtle differences. It's very important to time yourself during LG prep, but by that I mean time with a stopwatch, not time with a timer. You should give yourself unlimited time to do an LG, but you still want to know how long it took in order to track your progress, even if your first attempt takes 30 minutes.

I can almost guarantee if you read that post and apply the methodology that you should see positive results. I had planned to do that whole LG bundle at once but using that methodology I got comfortable quickly and only made it through the first third before I felt ready to start PTs. Doing the same LG back to back is important to build your speed, inference skills and confidence. Give it a try and let me know what you think, and if you need more help let me know.

Aiesha G.

Thank u guys so much! I really appreciate such prompt responses and your willingness to give advice. It is 1 am and while my son is sleeping before his next feeding, here I am playing logic games. Lol. I think for me a lot of it has to do with burn out as well because I never get much rest and by the looks of it you guys don't either lol. @Pacifico I will definitely read your guide and let you know how it helps.

Pacifico

@bSM45LSAT also reminded me of another bit of advice for games that give you trouble at the outset, or ones that give you trouble in making inferences to make a better master game board. In situations like these, I take a quick peek at the questions to see what I should already know. If there is a must be true question, but my game board is blank, I know I've missed a key inference that will at least lock up one slot somewhere. If all the questions are situational (e.g. - If B is before A, or if C is in a different group than D) but I only have one barely filled game board, then I tend to think it's probably better not to worry about splitting game boards at the outset, and just make them for each question, and then I can use those game boards for other questions if I need to. This is an often overlooked feature of LG: if each question has you making a new game board, keep those in mind for future questions where similar situations are triggered since you've already done the work and just need to look back rather than doing a whole new game board.