Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 191 Webinars
- 11 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 112 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 31 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 641 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic
Related Discussions
1 Like
For those of you who foolproofed the LGs from PT 1-35...
Gunningfor121
Alum Member
How much improvement did you see by the end of it? Were you going -0 on your next PT? Or was it the PTing that really solidified your LG skills?
I'm about two weeks into foolproofing and I've made a good bit of progress, but I'm curious about what other peoples' experiences have been.
Comments
For me, it really was foolproofing LG first that helped me get towards -0 range. Then it was maintaining that everyday. At the end, I still had some sections where I would sometimes go -1 or -2 because of silly mistakes so I ended up foolproofing LG form and that really helped fix things.
Went from -12 or -14 (yiiikes) to -0 to -3. I think the biggest jump I got was because I took LG sections, which helped with my timing. I'm also not afraid of unusual games and feel way more confident going into a LG section on a practice test. I was hesitant about the process initially, but it definitely works. I still have room to improve, but I believe Pacifico's method was a life changer!
I saw quite a ton of improvement. I could barely answer any questions on LG, and after fool proofing I was constantly getting -8. I transitioned into doing the rest of the available LG sections and fool proofing those as well, and though I'm not scoring -0 (working on it), I've been able to bring my score down to -5/-3. It's quite a process, but stick with it.
Well it's a bit of a tricky question since after the PTs in the 30s the LG gets ridiculously easier. Thus, people do start seeing -0s after fool-proofing LGs 1-35 as both a combination of actual improvement and just in general because they are taking easier LG sections. For example just try PT 42 vs 32. Personally had -0 consistently after PT 38 and then PT 55 onward LG got harder again.
@eRetaker Interesting... Is there a section on the recent tests that is easier than normal?
@Gunningfor121 Yeah, try LG from PTs 81, 82, and 84. The general trend recently has been easier LGs and tougher RCs, with PT 83 being the only exception.
@eRetaker I'm taking the March 2019 LSAT... Hopefully the easier LGs last till then haha
@Gunningfor121 oh you have plenty of time then lol. I have no doubts you'll start hitting consistent -0s if you keep fool-proofing and good luck in March!
I should note that it helps to fool-proof all the PTs you take even after you fool-proofed PTs 1-35.
@eRetaker Yeah I was planning on it! And thanks for the encouragement! Do you have any specific tips on how to get the most out of foolproofing? I've been attempting the game (timed), BRing it, watching JY's explanation, and then doing the game several times, typically over 2 or 3 days, until I feel I've got it down. I just want to be sure I'm getting as much out of each game as I can.
I thought doing the game over and over again 10 times was overkill tbh. I did it once timed and then BR'ed an hour or two later. Then I watched JY's explanation to see how similar our methods were and then wake up the next morning and redo the section. One advice I will give is that you should create your own notation system that is easy for you to use. For example, I thought JY's notations in grouping games were a bit weird so I just made my own notation that was more intuitive. Everyone is a bit different so don't feel like you have to stick with JY's notations every time. On that note, there will probably be times that your method for solving a particular game will be quicker than JY's so experiment with yourself. Fool-proofing is meant to rewire your brain towards LSAT thinking so stick to a strict schedule.
Lastly: http://news.berkeley.edu/2012/08/22/intense-prep-for-law-school-admissions-test-alters-brain-structure/
@eRetaker Got it. Thanks for the help!
@eRetaker great advice and thanks for including the article as well! It’s interesting.
@"Beast Mode" @Gunningfor121 Np, and best of luck on the LSAT journey
@eRetaker thank you and good luck!!
I fool proofed like PTs 1-16 and was pretty close to -0 but not there yet. I then started PT'ing and would eventually fool proof PTs 29-38 and PTs 42-51before I was more consistently seeing -0s with the occasional section where I would go -2 or -3 because of a bad day, tough game or foolish mistake. Don't obsess about -0s though. If you can go -3 or better I think you're solid at LG and improvement will come from things other than just straight fool proofing. At least I think there are more efficient ways once you're at that point.
One piece of advice I would give you is to do full sections. Take an entire LG section in 35 mins, BR it, watch JY's video w/ your game right in front of you, pause after he shows the diagram and make sure you can reproduce, and then really try to examine where you went wrong. Take notes. I think that's the most important part of fool proofing. I would also say to make a list of steps you are going to follow for each and every game just like JY does. Having a solid process is legit priceless for doing well on LG. Just have to follow the steps, it really can be that easy.
Good luck!
Sincerely,
Someone who used to suck at logic games for the longest time.