foolproofing

Comments

• 1 Like

  GSU Hopeful Core ⭐

  October 2019 1644 karma

  The games, through my experience, have definitely changed over the years. But, you the writers are capable of pulling stuff out of their butt from previous years. By foolproofing the earlier ones, you are simply safeguarding yourself against being blind sided on test day. I think you have alot more to lose by not than the tradeoff of doing those.... unless youre on a time crunch.
• wscar001 Member

  October 2019 18 karma

  yeah as mentioned I'm taking in November so there is a time crunch. I don't understand this sentence though: "you have alot more to lose by not than the tradeoff of doing those." I'm still getting exposure to weird games and seeking them out weekly-- if that's what you mean. are 1-19 really that much more bizarre than anything on every other PT since?
• 1 Like

  GSU Hopeful Core ⭐

  October 2019 1644 karma

  I overlooked the November take. My bad. I was trying to type this out on the run. All I meant was that the benefit of taking the extra time it takes to foolproof the rest of the games outweighs not doing them if you feel as though you are squared away on the rest. If you have the time, what do you have to lose by doing it? Best of luck to you.
• 1 Like

  FindingSage Alum Member ⭐

  October 2019 2042 karma

  I also taking the November LSAT. Like you I also worked on later games, though not necessarily the same ones you did. I wish I had known about the suggestion to fool proof games in PT tests 1-35 because I am working on it now. The answer is yes it is worth it!! Even in Prep tests 1-7 you see a lot of weird games. For example, in those prep tests there is not one but two games who would have sufficiently prepared people for the feared virus game. There is a circular game on the first prep test. Even though it is slow and frustrating take your time to do these tests, just the games. Worst that happens is you breeze through them.
• 5 Likes

  Jonathan Wang Yearly Sage ⭐

  October 2019 edited October 2019 6874 karma

  There's nothing special about 1-35. The reason 1-35 is the given advice is because those were 'safe' ones to use when there were only like 60 or so tests; 35 tests to break up for understanding purposes, 25 or so to take as full lengthers. Now that there are 86 (and counting), you can feel free to use games from further up the sequence. In fact, when teaching logic games these days, I usually specifically have my students avoid the nonstandard games at first because introducing those when the core fundamentals are not yet set is actively detrimental. Assuming a blank slate, I normally have my students learn from 21-51 or so and then come back for the first 20 later. You gain a lot more points from just nailing the standard games than you would from learning nonstandard stuff while your other mechanics still need work.

  More importantly, you need to understand why you're foolproofing. It doesn't matter what you pull from if you're not taking the appropriate lessons. And if you are learning the right lessons, it doesn't really matter what you pull from either. Just make sure you have enough full length tests (be mindful of 'wasting' tests because there aren't an unlimited number, but don't be scared to use them either) and you'll be fine.
• 2 Likes

  tristan.locke1 Alum Member

  October 2019 100 karma

  It is worth reviewing 1-35. From what I have heard, LSAC is just now starting to recycle some strange older game types. A lot of the horror in the September 2019 exam came from the fact that they went weird / retro with the games. There’s a lot of insurance value in foolproofing 1-35 because you could get completely thrown on test day if they break out an old game. That happened to a lot of us in September. I know that’s anecdotal, and I get that you are time constrained, but I wish I had reviewed the older games more!
• wscar001 Member

  October 2019 18 karma

  @"GSU Hopeful" Thanks for your comments I appreciate the insight!
• wscar001 Member

  October 2019 18 karma

  Thanks all, super helpful comments! Another thing is that I like to foolproof full sections under timed conditions-- drilling not just the fundamentals of the game, but the rhythm of working through games of varying strangeness and difficulty. I guess I'll go back to 1 - 19 just to get some especially bizarre ones in, which should be helpful for that reason + the fact that I'm now getting -0 on retakes anyway and want to see some fresh ones without burning the late 70s-80s (only others I haven't yet written).