Stupid Mistakes in Logic Games

Comments

• 8 Likes

  BinghamtonDave Alum Member ⭐ 🍌🍌

  November 2018 8716 karma

  It's not foolish to think so, after all, you've hit the -1 before.

  A word on "stupid mistakes":

  There is a not small portion of LG that relies on what I have started calling: housekeeping. What I mean by this is that there are those things that we don't really think about that go into a great LSAT score but their absence can be disastrous. As an example, I sometimes write the letter "V" a bit like I would write the letter "U," meaning I get a bit undisciplined with my handwriting and then can't tell the difference between the two letters (so embarrassing to admit lol.) This isn't a huge huge deal on the LSAT but on PT 57 Game 3 there is a rule that relies on me telling the difference between a "U" and a "V," yet when I first did the game, I was sloppy with my handwriting and it was disastrous. Now, that is a terrible feeling, to be ready for a game, to be ready for the set up and grasp precisely what it is we are doing and what we will be tested on and to have my mistakes emanate from my sloppy handwriting. Nevertheless a missed point is a missed point, my score that I got on that section still said a -6, it didn't matter that I thought I understood the logic and it was "just a handwriting mistake." The final score doesn't tell the difference.

  So, what we've got to have to prevent these mistakes is a conscious and systematic approach to all these "housekeeping" items on our section. I call this "housekeeping" because my wife and I now run a household and it helps tremendously to have a designated spot for items we need: the dish detergent is in a designated spot, the steel wool is in a designated spot, laundry detergent is in a designated spot, the rock salt we have ready to go for upstate November mornings has a designated container and a designated spot. When everything has a spot, it is easy to see what we need and to reach for it when we need it. The same goes for LSAT games, everything should have a designated spot so we can reach for it when we need it:
  -A list (sometimes even two identical lists so we can possibly work POE for "floaters") of our game pieces
  -A list of every rule written out carefully and correctly
  -A list of a possible inference that arises when we add the inherent constrictions of the gameboard along with the implications of a rule with the implications of another rule.
  -A concise gameboard for those games amenable to one (the vast vast majority of games), and the flexibility to do those small portions of games that might not require a concise/ridged game board.
  -Make sure we are clearly and coherently reading the question stems

  Remember, whenever we face a game, the game has been cracked by others before. The game is doable. Any time we are lost or can't quite get our footing correct: our north star is our rules, the game pieces and the inherent constrictions of the gameboard. In practice we develop and hone this systematic way of approaching games and through fool proofing we get close to mastering it. But "stupid mistakes" can be cut down by what I'm calling "housekeeping."

  I hope this general approach helps limit silly mistakes
  David
• Pride Only Hurts Alum Member

  November 2018 2186 karma

  @BinghamtonDave said:
  It's not foolish to think so, after all, you've hit the -1 before.

  A word on "stupid mistakes":

  There is a not small portion of LG that relies on what I have started calling: housekeeping. What I mean by this is that there are those things that we don't really think about that go into a great LSAT score but their absence can be disastrous. As an example, I sometimes write the letter "V" a bit like I would write the letter "U," meaning I get a bit undisciplined with my handwriting and then can't tell the difference between the two letters (so embarrassing to admit lol.) This isn't a huge huge deal on the LSAT but on PT 57 Game 3 there is a rule that relies on me telling the difference between a "U" and a "V," yet when I first did the game, I was sloppy with my handwriting and it was disastrous. Now, that is a terrible feeling, to be ready for a game, to be ready for the set up and grasp precisely what it is we are doing and what we will be tested on and to have my mistakes emanate from my sloppy handwriting. Nevertheless a missed point is a missed point, my score that I got on that section still said a -6, it didn't matter that I thought I understood the logic and it was "just a handwriting mistake." The final score doesn't tell the difference.

  So, what we've got to have to prevent these mistakes is a conscious and systematic approach to all these "housekeeping" items on our section. I call this "housekeeping" because my wife and I now run a household and it helps tremendously to have a designated spot for items we need: the dish detergent is in a designated spot, the steel wool is in a designated spot, laundry detergent is in a designated spot, the rock salt we have ready to go for upstate November mornings has a designated container and a designated spot. When everything has a spot, it is easy to see what we need and to reach for it when we need it. The same goes for LSAT games, everything should have a designated spot so we can reach for it when we need it:
  -A list (sometimes even two identical lists so we can possibly work POE for "floaters") of our game pieces
  -A list of every rule written out carefully and correctly
  -A list of a possible inference that arises when we add the inherent constrictions of the gameboard along with the implications of a rule with the implications of another rule.
  -A concise gameboard for those games amenable to one (the vast vast majority of games), and the flexibility to do those small portions of games that might not require a concise/ridged game board.
  -Make sure we are clearly and coherently reading the question stems

  Remember, whenever we face a game, the game has been cracked by others before. The game is doable. Any time we are lost or can't quite get our footing correct: our north star is our rules, the game pieces and the inherent constrictions of the gameboard. In practice we develop and hone this systematic way of approaching games and through fool proofing we get close to mastering it. But "stupid mistakes" can be cut down by what I'm calling "housekeeping."

  I hope this general approach helps limit silly mistakes
  David

  Love all of this! And I think I made the same mistake on that game. Lolol. I felt like the writers set us up for failure there.

  I’ll make sure my housekeeping is on point!
• 1 Like

  keets993 Alum Member ⭐ ⏰ 🍌

  November 2018 6050 karma

  I felt like the writers set us up for failure there.

  I had a similar situation with a game that had a "W" and a "V" and I kept getting them confused. After all, they look really similar.

  As for your other question, I always tell people this: habits make a huge difference. Some games sections punish us for our bad habits, whereas other games sections allow us to get away with sloppiness. So while you're foolproofing, make sure to also focus on your good habits. Keep tracking of game pieces, not rushing, doing questions in the most efficient order, and not letting panic subsume you. I think when foolproofing, people sometimes forget the effective process, because the things that throw you off during a new game you'll already be familiar with.

  Good luck on Saturday!
• TexAgAaron Alum Member

  November 2018 1723 karma

  Ah great post and advice!!! I've gotten into a bad slump with stupid mistakes that either cost me time to fix or ruin my understanding of the game! Just got to keep digging and be aware of your bad tendencies!
• jspps2 Alum Member

  November 2018 edited November 2018 18 karma

  I've been working on the same general issue while drilling LG this past week, and I feel the struggle! Under timed conditions, it is so easy to let anxiety about time get to you, and force you into dropping your habits and rushing ahead. While this makes sense to our base instincts, it doesn't help on the LSAT!

  I've had some luck doing some drills everyday where I consciously DO NOT look at how long it takes, and simply focus on methodology and process.

  When I do start timed sections, I keep reminding myself of the following, even chanting it if necessary before I start to get myself to slow down and relax:

  Slow down.
  Be methodical.
  Go back to your rules.

  This has seemed to help reduce my instincts to fight through it, and instead allowed me to WORK through it.
• 1 Like

  Bamboosprout Alum Member

  November 2018 1694 karma

  I think it's important to have a system. I'm terrible with details and nuances, so I fall back on systems. Over time, I change and update the system to adapt to mistakes I make, including silly mistakes. I ask myself, how can I make sure I don't make this silly mistake again? Maybe it takes using my pencil to point at where I'm reading to make sure I'm not glossing over words; maybe it takes mark key words in LGs like the way I mark key words in RC; or maybe it's to have a specific 10 step method to tackle a specific situation, such as a type of board splitting, or substitution questions. I make my system as broad and as reliable as possible.
  Our (hopefully) alumn @"Cant Get Right" has shared with us his system, and I recommend that you build something similar, but for your own circumstance. Change and amend it for your own needs.
  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WyjYC7I3mJ8YCrRG5SYqiq0KU5YGdqFmJodv7AXQRb0/edit