#### Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

# Run through LG CC or stop and repeat each game until foolproofed?

Monthly Member
124 karma

I'm on my first run through the LG part of the CC. I'm having some trouble in the later stuff (In/Out with sub-categories, etc) and LG timing in general. Should I stop and make sure all of those practice sets are 100% within time, or should I finish the CC, do a PT, and see what I still need to work on?

Show Related Discussions

• #### Would /F and /J be an "or" sufficient condition or an "and" sufficient condition for /M?M → F /J → /M _______ /M I took the contrapositive of M > F which got me /F > /M Then I inferred that /F **or** /J would net me /M. Which me…

• Alum Member
168 karma

You should learn how* before how fast*. As you are learning the material the first time through don't worry about timing. You will have so. many. more. opportunities too worry about timing when you full-proof.

• Monthly Member
edited February 2021 1041 karma

I'm stopping and fool proofing each game before moving on, in a sense. I have a spreadsheet going with all of the games done thus far with notes, the last time I took it, and whether or not my last timed run fell within the goal for that particular game. I spend about an hour or so as part of my studies running through a bunch of them. After I do that, I continue on in the CC. I find cycling through the games in this way to be a better system for me than just doing a game 10 times in a row. If I give it a couple days, I'm less likely to remember all of the inferences.

That's what is working for me at the moment!

• Monthly Member
124 karma

@Burden_of_Floof said:
I'm stopping and fool proofing each game before moving on, in a sense. I have a spreadsheet going with all of the games done thus far with notes, the last time I took it, and whether or not my last timed run fell within the goal for that particular game. I spend about an hour or so as part of my studies running through a bunch of them. After I do that, I continue on in the CC. I find cycling through the games in this way to be a better system for me then just doing a game 10 times in a row. If I give it a couple days, I'm less likely to remember all of the inferences.

That's what is working for me at the moment!

Yeah, that seems like a much better idea to me too. I might try that as well. Thanks!

• Alum Member
97 karma

@Burden_of_Floof said:
I'm stopping and fool proofing each game before moving on, in a sense. I have a spreadsheet going with all of the games done thus far with notes, the last time I took it, and whether or not my last timed run fell within the goal for that particular game. I spend about an hour or so as part of my studies running through a bunch of them. After I do that, I continue on in the CC. I find cycling through the games in this way to be a better system for me than just doing a game 10 times in a row. If I give it a couple days, I'm less likely to remember all of the inferences.

That's what is working for me at the moment!

I was doing this approach too, but then found it was taking me wayy too long to get through the games CC as a result. (For reference, there are 85 games covered by the CC.) So about half-way through the games curriculum, I switched to doing just enough go's at a game to get all questions correct, not necessarily in the recommended time. Now that I'm done with the games curriculum, I'm going through the games in order of appearance in the CC that I didn't complete in time and foolproofing those. After that, I plan to go through and foolproof all the games from PTs 1-35 (which includes 55 new games, not introduced in the CC lessons or problem sets) in chron order so that I don't have a leg-up knowing what set-up corresponds to what game. Not sure how the time nets out on the whole, but I do feel better that I've gotten through the curriculum and feel like it's now all about drilling, not about missing content.

• Monthly Member
edited February 2021 1041 karma

Interesting! Yeah it is time consuming, but it does help to limit my drilling to an hour per day... although TBH sometimes (cough frequently) that turns into more because I can get obsessive about things haha. Still, @HLoom1222 it's definitely worth pointing out... it takes longer this way to get through the CC. That doesn't bother me so much, it took me 5 months to get through the Logical Reasoning CC alone, partly because I typed up in-depth explanations for almost every single question. This is working for me because I was able to give myself over a year to study for the LSAT, but, we all have different timelines!

• Alum Member
1687 karma

I don't think it matters too much one way or the other. Either way the time will have to be spent. Either it is spent upfront in the CC and your post CC exam will be higher if you fool proof each LG in the CC than if you do not. Or it will be lower and you will have to spend the time after CC. It also has to do with the time line you are on. If have the time CC might be a little better mentally because you won't have to worry about the other parts of the exam as much. However, if you are anxious to finish the CC (as anyone can understand) and it is affecting your performance in LG then move on with the CC. In theory you are going to have to put in X hours for the score you want, how the hours are divided up I don't think is of huge concern.

• Monthly Member
91 karma

I had this same question. I think it comes down to whether you will be more frustrated if you (a) continue to be "slow" (but accurate) at solving games longer into your LG journey, or (b) if it takes a really, really long time to make progress through the core curriculum. That's going to vary person to person. For me, so far my method is to try to foolproof and get things done under time as I'm going through the core curriculum.