I'm desperate to get better at logic games

cmelman95

I'm sitting for the Feb test, and if I could consistently get games to -1 or -0 as so many people say is possible then I'd be hitting 175+ on almost every test. I've read the games bible twice, I've done almost every game from preptests 7-38 several times with 7sage explanations, and yet I still can't seem to adapt to new wrinkles when I see a game for the first time. Time is an issue, as I constantly have to mechanically refer to the rules to check my work on questions. Diagramming any type of slightly unusual game is a huge problem. I'm particularly bad at seeing spatial patterns within games.

I don't know if I should stick with the strategy of repetition or what. Maybe the games will just get easier as I do the newer tests? I just have no confidence on this section whatsoever because my performance is so unreliable.

Any suggestions?

MrSamIam

Are you using the 7Sage fool proof method? Link below. The games are highly predictable. What you saw on a 1991 exam, you'll see again in a 2000+ exam. I'm sure you already knew that. I too read the games bible...it helped a tad. However, what I believe would have helped the most is the fool proof method.

Link:

cmelman95

@MrSamIam yeah I am, which is what I meant by doing all the games with explanations. I still feel like I'm completely caught off guard by anything new.

runiggyrun

I'm in the same boat, slowly inching my way out. I can go anywhere from -0 to -8 on the LG and tend to panic/freeze for games with a twist. I'm not even talking about the "weird" ones from early PT's, those are not so bad as they tend to be quite easy once the initial surprise wears off. But things like groupings with extra elements, or sequencing with repeated elements are tough, because they look like something I've seen and should be able to do, but the "twists" mean I can't immediately figure out how to crack them. A few things that helped:
a. Use the 7sage, Manhattan or LSAT trainer strategies instead of the bibles for the games. I found them a lot more intuitive.
b. Get really good at the really easy stuff. Repetition is key. Once I could do a simple sequencing or in/out in less then 6 minutes, it freed up precious time to tackle the more difficult games.
c. Take a deep breath and a few seconds, even a minute after writing down the rules to make sure I got the obvious inferences. This is usually the biggest thing when going over a game a second time - you see things that you didn't the first time that would have made the questions a breeze instead of a brute force ordeal. I used to panic that I would run out of time, but I force myself to slow down - those extra minutes saved on the easy games help.
d. Don't fall into the trap of proving all the wrong answers. If you did your work carefully and found that answer A happens to be right, move on. You don't have to show that B, C, D and E are wrong.
e. Practice. I'm only ~ 30 PT's in, but seems like the last 10 or so were more like 0-4 wrong, instead of 4-8 wrong. I think the many timed PT's helped take the "edge" off, so now I'm not thinking "OMG, here go the games, I'm going to bomb it, I'm running out of time, I can't possibly do this, this game is easy so next one is going to be horrible, please make this end" but rather "OK, I got this, I've seen something like it, there's time, let's slowly figure it out".
Good luck, and hopefully some of the gurus chime in with other helpful tips.

Jonathan Wang

You're learning the 'how' without learning the 'why'. Don't just learn games by saying "if I see X, do Y" - because that's how you end up in the situation you're in. Learn them by asking yourself WHY characteristic X should make you want to do thing Y. That way, when they mash a few things together in an unfamiliar way, you have the tools to go with the flow.

Your practice should aim for this type of understanding, and in that context it is absolutely, 100% imperative that you disprove all of the wrong answers. Whatever shortcuts you choose to take under timed conditions is a separate question, but when you're in 'learning mode' you should learn everything the question has to offer. Often, the 'elegant' way of doing a question will only become apparent by looking at why the wrong answers are wrong; they will guide you to this particular scenario's pressure points, which you can then use to your advantage and archive away for future reference.

There's also the "oh shit" factor when you can't figure something out - you'll need to develop your mental fortitude and practice recentering mechanisms to get over that hump. If you panic, you're sunk no matter how good your mechanics are.

runiggyrun

One clarification to my comment above: I agree with Jonathan that you should absolutely disprove all the wrong answers when practicing. I meant don't do it under timed conditions. Doing it in practice will help give you confidence that you do in fact have the right answer when you think you do, so you won't second guess yourself in the test.