Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.1K All Categories
- 27.1K LSAT
- 16.5K General
- 5K Logical Reasoning
- 1.3K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 72 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 9 Scholarships
- 193 Test Center Reviews
- 2K Study Groups
- 108 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.4K Specific LSAT Dates
- 1 June 2024 LSAT
- 1 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 41 October 2023 LSAT
- 12 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 1 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.8K Not LSAT
- 3.9K Law School Admissions
- 11 Law School Explained
- 9 Forum Rules
- 573 Technical Problems
- 280 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Nearing the end of fool proofing and still -4+
NotMyName
Alum Member Sage ⭐
My goal score is 170 which means -1/-2 in games is pretty important. I can't say I have "mastered" games through and I am nearly done with fresh games from 1-35.
The progress I've made is shocking. I used to go -12+. Now I finish every easy game FAST. Tougher games still trip me up a bit though and focus errors remain leaving me at -4 to -6 on average per section. I am aiming to sit for the test in December so I have time to remain on LG, but I am wondering what the next step is.
I could remain in fool proof mode to repeat games until I reach the next step level in improvement. Or I suppose I could begin adding in timed sections of RC/LR as well to start addressing that before PT phase. Or I could begin PTing non-fresh tests. I used up a bunch of PTs last year (without BRing so they'll probably feel fresh) in my prep and I could use those for PTing.
Comments
You have made some really impressive gains. That being said, there is still work to do to get to a consistent -1. The work at this juncture will more than likely be more difficult than the work to get to this point. I started not being able to answer more than 1 or 2 questions per logic game section (this would put me at a -20 or so) and now am -1/-0. As an aside, I actually fool proofed 1-49 in an effort to master games. I started with a baseline of fool proofing easy games from the Cambridge packets (now you can design your own using 7Sage's "question bank.") I used these games in an effort to actually understand what a game was. I then used 30-49 as timed sections that I fool proofed after. The reason why I stretched what I felt I needed to fool proof through PT 49 was because I needed that amount of games to get me to where I needed to be. Rather quickly along my process, I got to -8/-7 in a timed set. I had to work inch by inch to then get to -3, where I labored the longest.
I can say with a fair degree of confidence that I have been where you are. My recommendations are as follows:
-If you are looking for a -1 on test day, in my estimation you are going to have to fool proof every game set in history. As you take a PT, have a day set aside for the fool proofing of the game section of that exam. This will pay dividends. Every time we fool proof, we add more and more to our arsenal of understanding.
-Out of your -4 there might be a -2 of that can be corrected by the analysis of a tutor. Consider enlisting one for a meeting once per week, at your stage in prep, the incorporation of some strategies specifically tailored to your needs afforded by a tutor might be fruitful.
Best of luck moving forward
David
@BinghamtonDave Thanks for the response! This was very helpful. I agree that I'll likely need to foolproof every game. The timing seems right for a tutor as well. My abilities in LR and RC are probably just a little further along than LG... a few grueling (and hopefully consistent) points away from greatness. I'll get started approaching tutors this week. Thanks again!
At the risk of reiterating what Dave brilliantly has said, you never stop foolproofing. Even when you get down to -1 avg on your LG. I guarantee you'll foolproof PT 57, 62, 68 and many of the 70s no matter how good your LG game is. LG is like a yoga practice. Even a yogi master never stops practicing. You just keep honing your LG habits so that today they are 1% better than they were yesterday.
For example, are you neat and organized rather than messy and haphazard while you are working through the game? Are you constantly trying to push rules up against other rules making inferences (i.e. thinking) rather than just copying the rules down on paper? Are you using probabilistic reasoning about which answer choices to start with depending on whether it's a MBT, MBF, CBT, CBF question rather than just brute forcing your way through the answer choices? These are just to name a few.
Nevertheless, congrats on your tremendous improvement thus far. Be proud of what you've done. And then try to be 1% better tomorrow.
Excellent, excellent post by @DumbHollywoodActor
everyone looking for a -1/-0 on test day in games should be asking themselves those questions.
@DumbHollywoodActor
Absolutely! Always improving. Thanks for reinforcing this truth.
I'm sure this was mentioned at least indirectly in the responses above, but the next step when I was in your place was tactics for specific question types. You'll pick this up by watching JY's explanations and learning to think ahead like he does. For example, if you have a CBT question, scan for a floater item and try that one; alternatively, scan for items that have rules associated and try to force a contradiction so you can eliminate that choice.
You will see the patterns in the way the questions are put together. A big one I noticed in preparing was the use of game pieces in a sequencing board where the question stem supplies a premise that makes it possible to place an existing two block item in one or two spots only. This kind of forward thinking is your next step and will let you see how the games are built and what you are really being tested. This approach spills over into the dreaded new or "misc" games as those basic core competencies are still being tested by LSAC, no matter what the format/setup.
@dcdcdcdcdc Thanks! Yea those tactics are clutch. I've been keeping track of those on flash cards and focus on implementing every time.
Finis them up then go through them all over again. That should set it straight!
The way I got to a consistent -0 is over time. I used to have to do a logic game almost everyday to stay consistent. However, now repetition is no longer important. With time and the right method, logic games become second nature. If you keep at it, you'll be able to finish almost every section, with a -0, and have about 10 minutes left to spare, or at least that's how it's become for me. Keep practicing and you'll get there.
@Kewlaidd lol yup! Such is the process.
@TheLSAT
I can see the path to mastery from here. As Dave said above, the climb from -4 to -0 is likely to be a grueling and disproportionate ascent compared to -16 to -4. It was so nice to improve so quickly. I know i'll need more patience for the future improvement, but I also know it is coming so long as I continue.
Great advice given so far. The only thing I would add that helped me get to -0 to -2 consistently wasn't even learning how to do the most difficult games in say 8 minutes or less. Nope. Instead, I saw my scores increase dramatically when I had the confidence to attack every easy game I saw in around 5 minutes. Usually I can complete two of the games (and usually the first two) in about 10 minutes total. This takes some confidence and a deep understanding of simple games. But then it leaves me with 12-13 minutes to complete each of the "harder" games, which de-stresses me for these games and helps me to cut down on careless errors. It also has the added benefit of allowing me to make inferences up front on this harder games, a step we might be otherwise tempted to skip if time is an issue.
how do you know your near the end?
@Zachary_P Preach! That is so true. Knowing we have 10-12 minutes for a game is a huge stress reliever. I also think that since harder games are either (1) the same as easy games except added levels of stuff (double layer sequencing + grouping or a ton of sub categories) or (2) weird games which aren't actually difficult but take a little more time to figure out because they're weird. So if we have the ability to attack easy games confidently, then we have the ability to complete hard games in a reasonable amount of time.
@tams2018 What I've learned is that I am NOT near the end lol
@DumbHollywoodActor lol still thinking about your Yogi analogy. I wonder if LG will take the form of a stress reliever once I am finished with the LSAT. In the midst of blood sweat and tears of L1, just steal away 35 minutes to do a section of fun games and think back to the good ol days fool proofing and pencil discussion
I do an LG per day as a warm-up before I tutor or do some 0L prep (I've got PT 18, game 3 up for today). I too think I will continue this practice into 1L. It's the perfect warm up.
Thanks for all the helpful posts on this thread @BinghamtonDave and @DumbHollywoodActor , I have recently found myself in a similar position to @jkatz1488 where even after fool proofing I still miss -3/-4 on certain PTs. Very insightful thread!
Thanks for the information on this thread! Currently foolproofing LG