Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.6K All Categories
- 27.4K LSAT
- 16.7K General
- 5.1K Logical Reasoning
- 1.3K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 73 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 9 Scholarships
- 193 Test Center Reviews
- 2K Study Groups
- 109 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 3 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 42 October 2023 LSAT
- 12 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 19 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.9K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 598 Technical Problems
- 277 Off-topic
Related Discussions
CC
ColinTurner610
Member
So I'm working through the CC right now and I'm currently in the Intro to Grouping Games: In/Out Games section. So as I've been going through these games I have been fool proofing ones that give me difficulty, which is most of them actually. So what I was really wondering is if I should not move onto to another set, game etc. until I fool proof the prior games. It seems that sometimes i'll be fool proofing and do about 7 copies of a game and master it then I move onto another game in the section and I get stuck again. I'm just wondering if moving on further down in games without fully mastering games is actually hurting me. But I do have to keep moving forward is basically what I'm getting at. I can clarify what I mean as well. Any advice here would be greatly appreciated.
Comments
Well I'm sure foolproofing as you go thru the CC wouldn't hurt, I finished the CC and then began foolproofing. Seeing and doing other games in the curriculum might help things click. Then you can go back and really diagnose what issues you may be having with any particular game/game types.
You should fool proof each game that you come across, but don't do more than the ones that are recommended in each section of the CC. Once you get exposure to all the different variations of the games, then you can go back and fool proof every other game. In such a case though, I would still go chronologically from 1-35 so that you are accustomed to figuring out the setups for yourself.
I would suggest fool proofing the games you have already done until you are confident on them. Holding on to your confusion might be counter-productive if you keep forcing yourself to look at different types of games. Perhaps try to do a couple of the in/out games to see how you fare. If you struggle with them then you should revisit the conditional logic part of the curriculum because these games require fluency with a bunch of rules/conditionals. Your struggles with sequencing could be related to that or it could be specific aspects of the game.
I guess what I'm saying is, I think if you break down your analysis of the games it might be easier to see what exactly it is about games that are challenging to you. Is it the lack of familiarity, lack of confidence, lack of understanding of rules, etc.? Maybe each new game is difficult because you get flustered and forget the good habits - like making inferences, looking at rules when you get confused, etc. I think the challenge with fool proofing is that sometimes you forget to employ those good habits and become mechanical in your approach and so when you come across a new game, you go "huh? what?"
The way the curriculum is set up, especially the problem sets, is cascading levels of difficulty. With LR, the increase in difficulty through problems sets is more subtle especially since there are so many more problem sets provided. With LG you're leaping, whereas in LR you were hopping, so don't beat yourself too much if you find that you have to do each game multiple times before you get it.
Also, it's okay to struggle with LG! Everyone says its the most learnable section, but that doesn't mean its inherently easily. It just means that through LOTS of reptition and exposure, your results can be reliably consistent. Of course, everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses so this can be something that's true for people with RC and LR.
I agree with a lot of what has been said. I wouldn't touch the hard questions in the question bank until you're done with the entire LG section. It's good to have them saved for when you're reviewing all of the question types later. If you had the Ultimate package I might say something different, just because you have access to so many questions. (If you can afford to upgrade at any point, 10/10 would recommend.) I've been going through this with the LR section (went through the LR CC twice now) because I found that a lot of what I learned "so well" before was stored in my short-term memory, and I'm glad I have the difficult questions to review now. Yes, you can look at the questions in the question bank 100 times, but it's different when you're reading them for the first time.
Conversely, if you're really lost, a few question bank explanations might be helpful to make things click. All of this also depends on when you're taking the exam and how much time you can devote to studying. If you could only get in 10 hours a week and you were taking the exam in September, I'd say that you should just get through the CC. If you had 40 hours a week and were taking the test in 2019, I'd say to learn everything until it's second-nature, go through the CC a second time, and do every PT.
do pacifico's FP method