Overall Trends in Games

Comments

• DumbHollywoodActor Alum Inactive ⭐

  November 2015 7468 karma

  Can you BR the games perfectly? If not, I’d say a trip back to the main curriculum is in order. If your BR is perfect, then I’d say you need to increase your fool proofing of a game. Memorize those inferences.
  
  And for some people (I’m one of them), the process takes OVER a year.
• Sheri123 Alum Member

  November 2015 1196 karma

  I was struggling with LGs from Sept - October (w/-8 to -10 wrong) and since November I have been averaging only -2 - 4 wrong (The last three have I have only missed 1). After a month of PTs I began to notice that most of my mistakes were because I had misread & subsequently miswrote a rule or two. I slowed myself down and started rechecking how I was writing the rules down and I have seen a huge improvement. I don't think LGs take that long to get pretty good at. Obviously the more practice the better. I wish LR was as easy to improve as LGs seem to be.
  
  I like Pacifico 's method of attacking issues with LG, you can find his method in prior posts. Basically if you miss any questions, make copies of those and redo them until you master them. Pacifico please correct me if I am not explaining it correctly.
  
  Good luck smg0011, trust me you can do this. In the mean time any tips for LR?
  
• sean.marz Alum Member

  November 2015 181 karma

  If your biggest problem is LG you have it made in the shade! Practice makes perfect
• GSU Hopeful Core ⭐

  November 2015 1644 karma

  http://7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/2737/logic-games-attack-strategy
  
  Here is the strategy of @Pacifico . It is a great tweak of the FP method.
• smg0011 Alum Member

  November 2015 20 karma

  
  Great, thanks everyone. In "memorizing those inferences," has the collective body of 7sage knowledge put some kind of quantifiable number on the list of inferences in play. I know there are a limited number of game types/setups that have presented themselves across the previous test administrations.
  
  e.g. There are probably around some 600-1200 inferences that pop up across the previous 300+ games.
  
  Is this a bad way of thinking about it? Is it better to conceive of this as a few types of games with a few different variations that can pop up on each type? e.g. only a few hundred "inferences to memorize"
  
  Sheri, the only tangible advice I have is that for the other sections it is necessary to take full length 4 section tests under proper conditions. This has affected me tremendously. Also, it cannot be discounted that rest affects your abilities.
  
• 1 Like

  Sheri123 Alum Member

  November 2015 1196 karma

  Thanks smg0011, I am taking full length 4 section tests under timed/proper conditions, about 20 so far, not sure if there is a point where the LR will click like the LG & RC seems to have. I'm doing much better on RC by slowing down & engaging with the material more.
  
  Regarding the games, I personally don't think you have to memorize 600-1200 inferences, you just need to use logic to translate your rules properly and try to identify how each rule will impact the other rules and the game itself. For example if you have a rule that says G right after M, and then you have a rule that says H is before G then you immediately know that H is also before M. If there is anyone who has literally memorized 600-1200 inferences, I would love to hear from them on what technique they used to actually memorize said inferences. I think the main takeaway you can get from most 7Sagers is that with LG, to practice a lot & get exposure to as many different types of games and when you struggle with one, practice it until your feel like you nail it. Good luck with your studies.
• c.janson35 Free Trial Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  November 2015 2398 karma

  Focus less on literally memorizing inferences and more on remembering the thought processes that are necessary to produce inferences.
• Pacifico Alum Inactive ⭐

  November 2015 8021 karma

  @smg0011 said:
  Is this a bad way of thinking about it?
  

  Yes. Just get to work and stop worrying about stuff like this.
  
  

  @smg0011 said:
  1. I recall JY said something along the lines that "at some point" logic games will just click for you." Has anyone with more studying under their belt been consistently bad at this and then finally broken through?
  

  Yes this happens to most people that make the effort.
  
  

  @smg0011 said:
  2. Is it normal to have so many problems with games? My performance on the games in the analytics dashboard is pretty bad when compared against the other students.
  

  Yes it's normal. Your performance looks relatively bad because people generally do the LG bundle or something similar before starting PTs, and that, coupled with the fact that LG is the strongest portion of 7Sage's curriculum IMO is the reason that most LG sections appear pretty easy on 7Sage's analytics. People put in the work ahead of time and then crush most LG sections during PTs.
  
  

  @smg0011 said:
  If this is the case, have you found it true that this whole process takes an actual year?
  
  

  Getting good at LG should not take a year if you have more than 10 minutes per day to work on LG. Getting good at the LSAT might take you a year. It is different for everyone. Some people have diagnostics in the 170s and usually those people have strong logic/reading backgrounds or natural skills and so they usually just suck at LG. Some people have diagnostics in the 120s and never pass 140. Some people have 140 diagnostics and get to 150, 160 or 170. Every person's story is unique except for the fact that it isn't because so many people take the LSAT.
  
  

  @smg0011 said:
  I hit 155 while only getting 8 questions correct in the games section. It is my biggest impediment by far.
  

  Stop what you're doing and just go on Cambridge and get all the LG PDFs before they disappear and then do this for a month: http://7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/2737/logic-games-attack-strategy
  
  Take 1 PT a week with excellent clean copy BR to keep your LR/RC game decent and you should see your score start to reach the mid to high 160s.
  

  @smg0011 said:
  Is it better to conceive of this as a few types of games with a few different variations that can pop up on each type? e.g. only a few hundred "inferences to memorize"
  

  This is also a bad way to think about it. You're not memorizing inferences, you're familiarizing yourself with how to make them and how game pieces in certain game types interact with the game boards and how certain rules work. You are making way too much of this and you just need to stop and do a ton of games and it will work itself out.
• nicole.hopkins Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  November 2015 7965 karma

  @smg0011 said:
  I'm assuming the only remediation here is to continue re-doing copies of games. If this is the case, have you found it true that this whole process takes an actual year?
  

  You could also try The LSAT Trainer! Trying a new approach can be helpful. Sometime's one person's method just doesn't sit well, for whatever reason. I went 7/23 on my LG diagnostic and it took me the better part of a year to get to 1-3 (and I'm not a LG guru).
• DumbHollywoodActor Alum Inactive ⭐

  November 2015 edited November 2015 7468 karma

  @smg0011 said:
  In "memorizing those inferences," has the collective body of 7sage knowledge put some kind of quantifiable number on the list of inferences in play.
  

  Oh, boy. Sorry. I should have clarified. I didn’t mean to actively memorize inferences like one would memorize words for a vocab quiz. I just mean knowing that you can visually represent a "not both" relationship in an In/Out game or that when you’re dealing with an in/out game with sub categories, once you fill up one side of a sub category, you can fill in the other side.

  @Pacifico said:
  You're not memorizing inferences, you're familiarizing yourself with how to make them and how game pieces in certain game types interact with the game boards and how certain rules work.
  

  This is a much better way of describing what I meant.

  @nicole.hopkins said:
  You could also try The LSAT Trainer!
  

  LSAT Trainer is great. I especially like its use of shapes and subscripts for sub-categories.
  
  
• smg0011 Alum Member

  November 2015 20 karma

  Everyone, thank you. I started in August and I was hoping for Feb., we'll see what happens between now and then!