Do you think this is a good strategy?

goalis180

So I am in the section of the curriculum where I am doing Logic Games, and I wanted to get your opinions on my strategy of tackling the practice problems. What I have been doing is doing the games on my own no matter how long they take until I figured out every inference on my own, sometimes it takes really long, sometimes I get the inferences in seconds. I do not watch JY's explanation until I am done with the game. Is this what I should be doing to get better at inferences, or is it better to just watch the game explanation if I am unable to make the inference?

DumbHollywoodActor

I expect @Pacifico will be here very soon to offer you his guide. I like to kid him that it's practically his calling card, but it's actually very good advice.

c.janson35

I'm not sure how helpful brute forcing every single inference is because drawing quick inferences during a game is all about a mindset that must be developed. Doing a process of elimination type method for producing inferences might not get you to where you want to be, but I could be off base here... it's just my gut feeling. I think trying a game under a reasonable amount of time (not really long) and then watching JY do it may be more beneficial because you get that visceral reaction of "ohh that's so much easier I should try that!" while you're stumped, which can lead to long term success when you start trying to replicate his approaches. @Pacifico's guide is also a really good one so try giving that a look.

goalis180

@c.janson35 I should clarify that I make inferences which should be made up front on a game, I never brute force inferences due to the fact that some questions provide new premises which develop new inferences. The inferences I make are the inferences that I consider "always and forever," meaning they effect a certain variable(s) throughout the game.

Pacifico

Take this and call me in the morning:

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

goalis180

@Pacifico I was saving the fool proof method for when I finish the 7sage course. Do you think I should start now instead?

Pacifico

No, I was just following up on what my fellow mentors were referring to. But I'm glad you asked me this because it brought my attention back to where you are in your prepping. I think that the most important thing you should be taking away from the LG part of the curriculum is the general approach (game boards, notations, etc.) and methodologies that are in play, rather than trying to master LG as soon as you start learning them because you will waste your time trying to be perfect before you even know all that could go into it.

When I went through the LG part of the curriculum, I attempted the sample games (but not the problem set games) because I knew the former would help give me some familiarity with LG in general, but I had the LG bundle so I knew all the latter ones would appear in the bundle anyways so there was no need to slow my progression through the curriculum. You're having a focusing on the trees moment and the strategy you are using is going to give you insanely bad habits.

On the real test, if you encounter a game you don't understand, the correct response is to skip it and come back later. The incorrect response is to brute force your way through the game, possibly missing questions, and never getting to that wicked easy game that happens later. You will get better at making inferences when you see them being made. And if you are brute forcing then you are not really seeing how they get made, you're just working around that. If you can't make them, you need to watch the videos to see how they can be made and that way you will be better prepared for the next time around. This is also part of the essence of the fool proof method and why repetition is key for LG practice.

Eventually you will get a feel for the implications of floaters, or rules, not both rules, etc. But you'll never get there if you just keep brute forcing your way through the games. In the military we have a saying, "train as you fight," which means we try to do everything to simulate battlefield conditions as closely as possible, and you want to do the same thing in your prep. Why would you practice brute forcing if that is a last resort? Anyone can brute force a question (that's how a lot of people get LG questions right on their diagnostics), but not everyone can make all the necessary inferences.

Brute forcing is not a skill, so it doesn't need to be practiced, and you are wasting time and energy dedicating yourself to this out of some bizarre perfectionist quest to do it all on your own. Also, there are tons of games with pointless inferences. So why waste time finding every single one when you only need to find the meaningful ones? And the better you get at LG, you will understand what meaningful inferences are versus trivial ones. Trust the curriculum and the process, skip the problem sets, give the sample games a try, but know when you're bested and just watch the videos in receive mode so you can do some actual learning. Good luck!

goalis180

@Pacifico I make the inferences that need to be made on jnitial set up, I know this because JY makes them on his initial set ups. As for brute forcing, I only do that when I miss an inference which, unfortunately, is what is killing my games atm. I think the toughest part for me in LG is a game that is open with a ton of new premises on each question. Also I have a somewhat crappy habit where I do too much work in my head. Thanks for the hsads up. If you have more advice for me please share.

Pacifico

There are questions that require brute forcing by their nature, but I would estimate they represent less than one question per PT as you might see a few on one and then not see this phenomenon for several PTs. If you get to a plain MBT question with simple straightforward answers, this should tell you that you messed up somewhere and rather than brute force, you should go back and find the inference because it's possible it will open up other doors for you as well. I don't know what you mean by a ton of new premises because I think I've only ever seen questions with two conditionals (e.g.- If X is in 2 and Y is before Z..., etc.). And these questions are great because they help you fill up a previously unfilled game board, so these questions are among the easier types of LG question stems and they should generally be freebies if you are progressing through the game correctly.

@goalis180 said:
I have a somewhat crappy habit where I do too much work in my head.

So stop doing this. You know it's wrong to do this in the beginning, so just don't do it. Doing LG in your head is a very advanced level tactic and even then is not necessarily the best way to go because of the mental strain you could put yourself through, and it's hard to check any answers if you have extra time. In the beginning I would go hardcore in the opposite direction and write down too much and be really heavy-handed about it, then as you get better you can back off of this a bit until you reach your LG equilibrium.

goalis180

@Pacifico what I mean is question 2 would be like if x is 3rd what could be true for y, and then right after it another one asking what must be false if x is last. When I get a bunch of questions like that + the game has so many possibilities it takes me like 30-40mins to finish the game. I think I gotta get better at POE for these questions.

Pacifico

Oh I see what you're saying... Still it's just a matter of understanding relationships between inferences and being able to quickly recognize CBT/MBT/CBF/MBF relationships which has less to do with POE and more to do with your inferential skills. This will build naturally as you do more games as I recommended above. Regardless, 30-40 minutes is an insane amount of time since you should always be able to brute force an entire game in half that time. I would just keep pushing through and then hit the bundle and then reassess your issues from there.

goalis180

@Pacifico thank you, will do. Can't wait to finish the course so I can evaluate myself and find what I truly need to work on the most.

nicole.hopkins

@Pacifico said:
Why would you practice brute forcing if that is a last resort? Anyone can brute force a question (that's how a lot of people get LG questions right on their diagnostics), but not everyone can make all the necessary inferences.

A crutch is helpful so long as it is necessary; my question is—is what you're doing an effective crutch? Or is it just, um, going to leave you with a limp?

@Pacifico said:
Doing LG in your head is a very advanced level tactic and even then is not necessarily the best way to go because of the mental strain you could put yourself through, and it's hard to check any answers if you have extra time.

This is something you may find yourself doing naturally when you are **very, very advanced.** You always want to write out your gameboards/work for Q's where you need to make them because they will likely help you with later Q's (this way you avoid duplicating work). If you have to ask whether it's ok to do work in your head, the answer is no.

@Pacifico said:
Regardless, 30-40 minutes is an insane amount of time since you should always be able to brute force an entire game in half that time.

I agree. Something is up. You're thinking too hard, or being too perfectionistic, or both.

You'll get better!!! Don't demand high levels of performance from yourself now. You'll burn out. Just do what you can and be willing to come back and go through fundamentals again until it clicks.

goalis180

@nicole.hopkins thanks for the feedback always happy to get feedback from everyone. I don't think im being a perfectionist while doing the problems, however I do have a demand that if I am not under time constraints I should be 100% on every answer, and I guess with that comes proving out the rest of the answers wrong. I know I will not be able to do that on test day, however I do feel that by proving out why the wrong answers are wrong it helps me to understand important relationships for future games. What is your opinion on this way of thinking. @Pacifico would love your feedback on this too.

nicole.hopkins

@goalis180 said:
What is your opinion on this way of thinking.

Hoo boy! You are sure asking a lot of yourself. That might be a great thing to strive towards, but you gotta let yourself be ok with 90% certainty if that's really the best you can do. And no, it doesn't make you a dummy if you can only get to 90% certainty. I ain't no dummy and to be honest, I'm at 90% certainty a fair amount of the time. Is that ideal? Heck if I know. I ain't no robot, and I ain't no unicorn. But I've got a goal, and I just keep pushing on.

I think perhaps your challenge right now might be to cultivate gratitude for the times when you are able to attain 100% certainty, and acceptance for the times when you do not attain 100% certainty. That is probably a much more helpful and realistic mindset for studies and the test itself. It's just a pipe dream to think we're going to see 100% certainty all the time.

@goalis180 said:
I do have a demand that if I am not under time constraints I should be 100% on every answer

Methinks this is the definition of perfectionism! I understand, believe me! Perfectionists Anonymous right here!

goalis180

lmaoo realllyyy?!?!? even when I am not under time constraints I should not expect 100% certainty ?@nicole.hopkins

nicole.hopkins

@goalis180 said:
I should not expect 100% certainty

You should strive for it but you still might not get there. I certainly don't always get to 100% certainty on BR, which is the equivalent of the untimed work you're describing.

goalis180

Intetesting, thanks @nicole.hopkins. Please advise me on my other post on NA. You rock thank you in advance. Lollol

Pacifico

Do not get hung up on 100% certainty at the expense of progress... Hypothetically you could come across a question where you never reach that level because the question just doesn't jive with you or you just can't understand the implications of what it is asking... So you decide to sit there and just spin your wheels to try to figure it out and then before you know it, 60 years pass and you die of old age and never got to be a lawyer... How'd that perfectionism work out for you in that scenario? Pump the brakes on the extremism and take 'er easy...

nicole.hopkins

@Pacifico said:
How'd that perfectionism work out for you in that scenario? Pump the brakes on the extremism and take 'er easy...

Never let the perfect become the enemy of the good (in life and in LSAT study). You will never win.

c.janson35

In any case, if it is taking 30-40 minutes on a game to disprove/prove every incorrect/correct answer then you're not understanding the workings of the game as well as you should be. If you get to the point where you can arrive at the right answer for a LG question, you should be able to make quick work of all of the wrong answers. I'm only saying this so that you can recognize the areas that you're falling short instead of just chalking it up to perfectionism; on the LSAT and in life, a healthy dose of humility goes a long way.