Value of Mastering Hardest Games

Comments

• 2 Likes

  jknauf Alum Member

  February 2017 edited February 2017 1741 karma

  You would be well served to master these games.
  However, mastery of these games is not equal to mastery of all games.

  While these games will expose you to some of the toughest questions in the LG section, there still remains a plethora of other nuances to master which won't be covered.

  A good analogy would be learning to play guitar. While mastering tough songs with crazy solos will make you a better guitarist, it still won't prepare you to play every song out there.
• 3 Likes

  BinghamtonDave Alum Member ⭐ 🍌🍌

  February 2017 8711 karma

  I must respectfully disagree with the idea that in and of themselves mastery of the hard games listed is sufficient for mastery of all games. I must root my disagreement in what I consider "mastery" of LG. I define Mastery of games as a -0/-1 on any section the LSAT can throw at you in under 34 minutes. A master of games isn't bubbling in their sheet with 12 seconds to go in my estimation. Someone truly comfortable with games is finished early and is possibly checking their work with whatever left over time they have: eliminating stubborn wrong answer choices to prove an answer one wasn't 100% certain about etc.

  In my estimation, the list above fails for several reasons to suffice for true mastery of games. These reasons are as follows:

  1.It is incomplete: the list does not include PT 11 game 4: the historical precursor for last December's game 4. It does not contain PT 41 game 4, PT 1 game 1, PT B Game 3, PT C game 4: the historical precursor for PT 72's game 4 among a score or so others that I would say absolutely need to be fool-proofed. What I consider an absolute need to be fool proofed is a growing number of odd and once thought obscure games that the LSAT has every right to drawn upon.

  2.The list stops at PT 57: meaning we have no included instance of a rule substitution question. Rule substitution questions absolutely have to be mastered. The first rule substation was on PT 57, but not on the dinosaur game.Oddly enough, the rule substation question on pt 57 was on the easiest game of the set.

  3.The list has a dearth of linear games: games that would allow you to prep for PT 68's game 4 or PT 66's Game 2. There isn't much on that list that can allow one to a prepare for the difficulty of those games and several others like them.

  4.The list also presupposed a fair degree of knowledge of games with their inclusion of PT 27 game 2 and PT 36 game 3, the latter of which in my estimation is the single hardest game I have come across. Prepping with these games before doing dozens and dozens of easier ones poses an interesting impasse: will one understand why an answer is correct before knowing that that answer is correct? Meaning, leaving out what many consider the prerequisite work, will one be able to get all they can out of these games?

  5.The list doesn't account for set-strategies one absolutely must hone during their practice: the list in and of itself is insufficient for developing the pacing strategies and skipping strategies that characterize the approach to games of many high scorers and therefore does not meet the definition of mastery I laid out.

  My recommendation would be to master your approach to sets along side your approach to individual games. If you need assistance with anything LSAT related, don't hesitate to reach out.

  I hope this helps
  David
• 2 Likes

  Alex Alum Member ⭐

  February 2017 23929 karma

  @BinghamtonDave said:
  I must respectfully disagree with the idea that in and of themselves mastery of the hard games listed is sufficient for mastery of all games. I must root my disagreement in what I consider "mastery" of LG. I define Mastery of games as a -0/-1 on any section the LSAT can throw at you in under 34 minutes. A master of games isn't bubbling in their sheet with 12 seconds to go in my estimation. Someone truly comfortable with games is finished early and is possibly checking their work with whatever left over time they have: eliminating stubborn wrong answer choices to prove an answer one wasn't 100% certain about etc.

  In my estimation, the list above fails for several reasons to suffice for true mastery of games. These reasons are as follows:

  1.It is incomplete: the list does not include PT 11 game 4: the historical precursor for last December's game 4. It does not contain PT 41 game 4, PT 1 game 1, PT B Game 3, PT C game 4: the historical precursor for PT 72's game 4 among a score or so others that I would say absolutely need to be fool-proofed. What I consider an absolute need to be fool proofed is a growing number of odd and once thought obscure games that the LSAT has every right to drawn upon.

  2.The list stops at PT 57: meaning we have no included instance of a rule substitution question. Rule substitution questions absolutely have to be mastered. The first rule substation was on PT 57, but not on the dinosaur game.Oddly enough, the rule substation question on pt 57 was on the easiest game of the set.

  3.The list has a dearth of linear games: games that would allow you to prep for PT 68's game 4 or PT 66's Game 2. There isn't much on that list that can allow one to a prepare for the difficulty of those games and several others like them.

  4.The list also presupposed a fair degree of knowledge of games with their inclusion of PT 27 game 2 and PT 36 game 3, the latter of which in my estimation is the single hardest game I have come across. Prepping with these games before doing dozens and dozens of easier ones poses an interesting impasse: will one understand why an answer is correct before knowing that that answer is correct? Meaning, leaving out what many consider the prerequisite work, will one be able to get all they can out of these games?

  5.The list doesn't account for set-strategies one absolutely must hone during their practice: the list in and of itself is insufficient for developing the pacing strategies and skipping strategies that characterize the approach to games of many high scorers and therefore does not meet the definition of mastery I laid out.

  My recommendation would be to master your approach to sets along side your approach to individual games. If you need assistance with anything LSAT related, don't hesitate to reach out.

  I hope this helps
  David

  As always, gotta throw my hat in with Dave when it comes to LG!

  Well said!
• 2 Likes

  xqr1s4f3ed Alum Member

  February 2017 118 karma

  This is exactly the kind of discussion I wanted to start. Great points all!