I might be a fool

cmelman95

I know the fool-proof method for logic games is vaunted around here. But I might be the exceptional fool. See, I've done every game from PTs 1-57, most of them several times, and I still cannot consistently get below -4 on new games sections. Sometimes I even get the old games wrong, too. I've been banging my head against this wall since about October, and I just can't learn the damn things! Should I keep drilling and hope for a breakthrough? I thought I had one a few weeks back but then I slid back down to -4 or -5. Maybe I should just put the -0 goal out of my mind and accept that I might have a plateau.

stepharizona

@cmelman95 said:
I still cannot consistently get below -4 on new games sections.

What do you keep missing? Is it a type of game? Is it a rule? There more than likely is a common theme. Are you keeping track of which games, questions and types that give you the most trouble?

For me I could be a -0 if there was not an in out game... if there was I'd bomb a section just because Id freak myself over the In/Out game. I spent a lot of time honing that game type and now I am really confident in games and usually a -0 occasionally missing 1 or 2 if there are acceptability questions and I am pressed for time, but I am working on that weakness now.

LG is learnable, you just need to uncover where your vulnerability lies. Like my issue wasn't really In/Out games, it was properly diagramming the rules in most cases for this type of game. Shoring up the rules here helped me all around.

Id really seek out what your weakness is when it comes to LG and work on that. You can do this!

hlsat180

Hey don't give up! Everyone learns differently so don't be discouraged if a specific method doesn't work for you.

First, take a break (stop repeating whatever you are doing) until you can ID what specifically is holding you back. It's important to drill AFTER you figure out what to do so that you practice reinforcing the right habits, rather than digging a hole deeper with the wrong habits.

Second, I recommend focusing on mastering one type of game at a time, starting with the simplest (basic linear sequencing), then moving on from there. Building on fundamentals are key to unlocking more complex forms.

Third, with this in mind can you share an sample problem - what you did and why? Logic games are very learnable - just eat this elephant one bite at a time.

You can do this. Lots of helpful folks here will help get you back on track.

runiggyrun

@cmelman95 when you say "I can't consistently get better than -4" what does that mean? You hardly ever get better than that, or you usually get better than that but still occasionally miss more?
And where did you start?
I know it's common wisdom that games are the most learnable part of the LSAT, but that doesn't mean they are going to be as easy to learn for everybody. You can always improve, but at some point improvement will come a lot more slowly. Don't give up!
Aside from that, the questions asked above by @stepharizona are all very good questions.
I'd add a couple more:
Do you lose time on easy games confirming every wrong answer during a PT? (you should do it in BR and untimed drilling, but not during PT's). If so, use the BR process to learn to trust your instincts and use the saved minutes for harder games.
Do you use skipping strategies to make sure you get all the easy points? A tricky rule replacement question is still a point just like an orientation question, and the orientation might take you 30 seconds instead of 2 minutes for the rule replacement.
Do you occasionally panic or freeze and everything you've learned goes out the window? Taking a moment to recognize that you're flying off the handle and a couple of deep breaths can work wonders. Worst case scenario, move on to the next game and come back with a calmer mind.
Do you watch JY's videos for games you have trouble with, or games you are slow at solving? Sometimes he points out a key inference that makes solving the game much faster. If you don't watch the videos, the drilling might just enforce suboptimal habits.
When you drill the games, focus on the process rather than the time - make sure your rules are written down clearly, your board is clean, you've circled your floaters, you've notated the "not both" and "at least one" directly on the board, etc. Then take a minute before jumping into questions to see how the rules go together, think about where the key "pressure points" are for each game, think about other games you've seen that were similar.
One of the pitfalls of months of drilling is that you can reach a point where you're just going through the motions - make a conscious effort to think about the steps and what you're learning from them. Even if you've done a game 6 times, think whether there's a better, more efficient way to do it. Maybe a chart would be better instead of a grouping board, or maybe you should split the boards instead of solving them as you go.

You're not a fool. Games are hard. But that doesn't mean you should give up!

Cant Get Right

The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.
And knowing is half the battle.

-William Shakespeare

Nanchito-1-1

@runiggyrun I love your comments, so informative. Just at the right time when I feel like lgs are kicking my butt.

Cant Get Right

@nanchito said:
@runiggyrun I love your comments, so informative.

Agreed.

cmelman95

@runiggyrun I lose time on easier games because I can't "see" what's going on in my mind and often have to draw boards. My mind just moves too slowly. Yeah I do panic, and sometimes my -5 will turn into -0 on BR, which I know will signal to you that I'm close to where I need to be. But I think my BR improvement is due more to having a second look at the game and trying something that failed during my initial run than the relief of time pressure. I think one of my big problems is that I often don't see those pressure points; I just can't see many up-front or deeply embedded inferences.

To answer your first questions, I was getting -0 to -2 a few weeks ago but now am consistently getting -4 to -5. To put things a little abstractly, I thought I was "feeling it," but now it's once again like shoving a square peg into a round hole. And I started with -22, meaning I obviously had absolutely no idea how to do LG.

MrSamIam

First off, figure out what your problem is. Is it just timing? In other words, if you had an additional 15 minutes, would you score -0 - -1? Or, is it a particular type of game.
If timing is your issue, then keep drilling and stick with the fool proof method. It's designed to make you more efficient by helping you draw those repetitive inferences quickly.
If it's a a particular type of game that's giving you trouble, drill just that game type until you've nailed it down.

Given that you have actually scored -0 in the past, I'm assuming that timing is your issue. Focus your attention on drawing inferences. Watch J.Y.s LG videos and take note of when and WHY he draws certain inferences. Once you understand the why, it'll become much easier to implement the how.

Pacifico

You need to be taking more lessons with you after you finish a section and review it. Games do not exist in a vacuum. 90+% of games are just a variation of sequencing or grouping so when you screw up something in a game you need to be able to recognize exactly what it was, why or how you messed up, and what strategies you can adopt to correct those issues in the future.

You're not at the point I would be trying to do too much in my head, that's a very advanced skill that mainly helps to save time for those already in the -0 to -2 range. Don't fret about how many game boards you have to make as long as you are making them purposefully and correctly because they will be value added either in what they show/reveal to you or in what they tell you that you don't know so then you know where to focus.

As you make a master and work to split game boards, focus on the goal of reducing games from 6 elements to 4 or 7 to 6 and so on. Splitting does not require several fully solved boards, it's just to make the game easier for you. You might want to practice always splitting to get a feel for it and then figure out the times that you can back off a bit. That will at least allow you to flex your inference muscles a bit more so that you can develop those skills across multiple similar games.

Ultimately, if you're not taking anything away from a section that you can apply later. Then you're doing it wrong. The point is not to just get to -0 and then brain dump and move on with your life. Just like in RC and LR you are building a toolkit that you take with you on every test after that. Make sure you aren't forgetting what each game has taught you or else you'll end up spinning your wheels during prep and on the real thing. Good luck!

runiggyrun

@cmelman95 what are the sections where you were scoring 0-2, and what are these new ones where you are scoring worse? Are they from the more difficult tests? That would indicate that your skills are the same - still not where they need to be, but not declining.

Don't underestimate the effect pressure has on performance. Even if you don't feel "panic", you'll tend to rush and go with the obvious while under pressure, while BR allows you to settle and really think about what you're doing. That's why you're able to see solutions you didn't see under pressure. The FoolProof method, done mindfully, helps cement not just the inferences, but the process as well. That's why people like @Pacifico are stressing that you don't just go through the motions, but really focus on why you're doing everything you are and what you're learning. During the test, you'll fall back on what's familiar and what you've practiced, so practice "good form" and taking the time to think about what's optimum for each game. If you practice rushing and cutting corners, that's what you're going to do on the test.

Another note on "doing everything in your head to save time". Don't. That's where you make mistakes, or miss things, or miss the chance to uncover a key inference that would help on the next question. For anything other than the orientation question or really, really obvious stuff, draw a miniboard next to the question. Fill it until you have enough information to clearly pick the correct answer. Depending on the question, that could be a couple of elements, or a full board. I find that a full board is often necessary for things like in/out with multiple categories and number limitations, where you only see at the end that you have forced 4 out and only have 3 spots, but a couple of elements on the sequencing line and the glancing at the original "tree diagram" are enough for a simple sequencing game.
The 40 seconds you would save not doing miniboards for 4 questions can be wasted on a single question where you eliminate the correct answer because you didn't have a board and have to go back and do it again. That's why they say "never time to do it right, always time to do it twice".

Just in case this is lost in all the advice (all of the "do this" "don't do that" may come across as harsh criticism even if it wasn't intended as such), please know that you have achieved an impressive improvement going from -22 to -4. If all your other sections were perfect to start with, you would have gone from a 162 to a 177. If you were missing ~4 in each and 22 in games and you're now missing ~4 in each you'd still have gone from 154 to 165 solely on games improvement. Feel good about your hard work, but aware that to make that extra leap it will take sharpened focus, purpose and more time/point improvement.
And don't neglect the other sections and taking care of yourself as well

cmelman95

@Pacifico @runiggyrun @MrSamIam thank you all! I'm going to actively look for patterns; I think hybrid sequencing/grouping games are a recurring problem but I'll look more closely into that. It's tough for me to really introspect and tap into my mental state when I was taking a test to see exactly where my reasoning went wrong. That's more a memory problem than anything else. But I'll try.

I went -0 on PT 54, -2 on PT 55, and -5 on PTs 56 and 57, to answer one of your questions. That includes a couple -4s on some PTs in the 40s.

MrSamIam

@cmelman95 And how do we improve memory? By practicing and exposing ourselves to those patterns over and over again :]. Sequencing/Grouping hybrid games can be incredibly annoying at times, since you have to keep track of two things (order and category). However, over time they get a lot easier.
I find that if I get flustered on those games, i'll focus on one aspect first (e.g. the grouping element) then the other (the sequencing element) to see if I can better organize the mini board.

runiggyrun

Looks like your scores correlate well with how other people felt about those sections. 54 is rated Easiest, 55 is rated Easier, 56 is Medium and 57 is Harder (that's the one with the purple dinosaurs). The early 40's have a few difficult tests, after that they are all fairly easy, so if your -4's are in the early 40's I'd say your performance is actually very consistent.
That's the good and the bad news. The good news because you're not sliding backwards, the bad news because you still have to conquer the more difficult sections.
I think all the advice from everybody should help you get there.

cmelman95

@runiggyrun @MrSamIam Thank you again. I do think my issue is the more difficult games. Speed is my issue with easier games (although I'll miss the odd question because I was rushing or I misinterpreted a rule), and the one really hard game per section is a really tough hurdle for me to get over. Could be worse though!