LG Help

Comments

• phelanj75 Alum Member

  January 2017 279 karma

  I feel like I'm in the same scenario .. I tend to make strides In practice but I keep scoring single digits on the test .
• 3 Likes

  BinghamtonDave Alum Member ⭐ 🍌🍌

  January 2017 edited January 2017 8711 karma

  Hey folks, I am not sitting for the exam until June but wanted to stop by to say that it has taken me 1 calendar year: about 1200 games to be what I would consider even mildly comfortable with games. I mean that sincerely.
  
  I once saw a drawing that depicted an analogy of what the solar system looks like for one who is a white belt in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu (the lowest/beginner belt). It was a child's scribbling of some circles. The blue belt was a child's drawing who was maybe 6 or 7, a tiny bit clearer. The purple belt was a clearer drawing rendered by a centuries old cartographer. The brown belt was a drawing of a clearer photograph from the 1960s or so. The black belt (highest belt) was a modern satellite image that was brilliantly clear. I wish I could find that drawing to show you because I think of it often. Jiu Jitsu, like the LSAT is based on foundational lessons. Even after all that I put in, I see the games like a purple belt level on that chart. These are just the facts of life. I will continue on and leave no stone unturned.
  
  My recommendation would be to start from scratch. Start with PT 2 Game 1. Do it three times before you grade it. With each question, focus on specifically what it is you are being asked to do: start by seeing when a question is asking you for a MBT: that two of the answer choices might be parts on your diagram that you know can switch off spots and are hence not MBT. Focus on recognizing that if we have 5 spots and you have a piece that has 2 things after it (a leader item), that automatically that piece cannot go in spots 4 and 5 (because it would force items off the board.) That the things that follow it cannot go in spot 1. These are the reoccurring inference one learns to internalize through fool-proofing games. These are also what I call the "little inferences" that usually don't make or break our understanding of a particular game, but can aid in saving us time.
  
  Then do PT 1 Game 3. Focus on what each question is asking you to do. Focus on one star pure sequencing games for the next 2 weeks through the question bank option on 7Sage. Focus on what each question is asking you to do. Building these foundations inch by inch and I promise, your picture of games will get much clearer.
  
  
  
• tanes256 Alum Member

  January 2017 2573 karma

  @gparmar92 do you have the logic down? Are you diagramming correctly? Are you game boards correct? They don't have to be exactly like JY's but enough to get you the correct answers. Are you splitting the boards when ideal? Your timing issues says to me that you're having an issue with one of those mentioned above. When you are fool proofing are you getting all answers correct? If not, you need to watch the video again with your test in hand and go step by step to see where you went wrong. I don't think continuing to watch the videos without determining your errors will help much. Like you said, it'll just pretty much be memorizing. Memorizing isn't a bad thing for LG though. It has totally helped me with choosing a particular game board over another when I was stuck because it was familiar. I tackle LG much like LR. Most ppl don't think about BR when it comes to LG because it's covered if you are truly fool proofing but after a game I watch the video and notate where I went wrong. I'll jot down inferences that I missed, didn't split the game board, split the game board on the "wrong" letter, write why my wrong AC was wrong or should've had a double layer board instead of single. These things I'm sure you see when watching the videos but I think actually writing it out makes you internalize it instead of just listening to somebody talk. I'll admit the videos allowed me to get very lazy but I quickly realized that I wasn't going to gain much if I didn't actually internalize and do what was being said on the videos. Last thing, are you going back a few days or maybe even a week or so later to try the same LG again? This will also help you determine if you truly grasp that game. I kinda started rambling but hope it helps a little.
• 1 Like

  gparmar92 Alum Member

  January 2017 153 karma

  @tanes256 said:
  Last thing, are you going back a few days or maybe even a week or so later to try the same LG again? This will also help you determine if you truly grasp that game. I kinda started rambling but hope it helps a little.
  

  This is something I have to do. What I do after a PT is watch all the videos and draw out the inferences along with JY's explanation in a booklet. I have quite a few pages of logic game boards now, but I haven't really gone back and tried to re-do the sections under timed conditions which is probably hindering my fluency with the games.
  
  @BinghamtonDave I appreciate the BJJ reference as a muay thai practitioner my self haha. Thank you for your detailed response. From what you said, one thing I can improve on is being more active in my approach to the games. I find that I have tendency to consider far to much information and end up getting flustered (e.g. trying to figure out how 3 rules operate at once). I think one thing I'm going to do from now on is try to approach these things more calmly, and like you said really try to understand what is a particular question asking me, or what the implications of a specific rule are on a game board.
  
  To be specific my weakness tends to only be the grouping/in-out games. I feel very comfortable with sequencing games and understanding leaders/followers, where certain things can go or don't go. However, whenever I get an in-out/grouping game I sort of go into it with little confidence because I don't have a good history with them, despite understanding what the difference between not-both and or rules are.
  
  Thanks so much again for the responses. When I posted this discussion I did it out of a defeated state, because I just did a prep-test and scored so low compared to where I normally score. But now I realize that I need to figure out what specifically about the games am I screwing up on. I'm rewriting the exam in Feb, and I plan on doing really well, since now I have a gameplan of what I need to improve on.
  
• 1 Like

  BinghamtonDave Alum Member ⭐ 🍌🍌

  January 2017 8711 karma

  @gparmar92 in and out games are actually my favorite games. If you need any tips on any specific in and out game don't hesitate to reach out on this thread or another or a PM. Two thing I wanted to share with you that I carry with me with in and out games is that 1.Sometimes in and out games are "disguised." Meaning they don't actually tell you that they are in and out games, but rather lend their set up to an in and out set up. 2.Most in and out games have a "not both" rule. Meaning if you have piece V then you cannot have piece Z. A quick way to go through the standard acceptable situation questions for in and out games that have a not both rule is to look for a situation that contains both elements with one pass and then look for a situation that has neither element on a second pass. If a situation has neither element then both elements are together on the other side. The LSAt likes to hide these answer choices.
• gparmar92 Alum Member

  January 2017 153 karma

  @BinghamtonDave said:
  1.Sometimes in and out games are "disguised." Meaning they don't actually tell you that they are in and out games, but rather lend their set up to an in and out set up
  

  This right here. Your number 1 rule is what screws me up on the in-out games. I find that the games that I bomb (as in get 1 right or everything wrong) boils down to not recognizing the non-obvious in-out/grouping games. I'm not really sure how to improve on this, other than looking for potential key words that indicate some sort of split or something. But thanks again, I will definitely use rule 2 that you mentioned on those standard acceptable situation questions. That seems like a very useful application of the knowledge of what a not-both rule means.