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
- 4 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
- 574 Technical Problems
- 275 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Unique LG Games
apublicdisplay
Alum Member
With the recent uptick of unconventional LG games on PTs, I was wondering if anyone has a unique approach to minimizing the chances of striking out on a game. Obviously the best we can do is familiarize ourselves with these unique games, but in some cases I'm just genuinely lost.
One thing I was thinking of doing is browsing through the games at the very beginning of the section, spotting the unique game (if there is one) and at least read it and play with setting it up and then come back to it later. Kind of like skipping on LR. Sometimes priming yourself for something and then coming back to it helps you figure out what to do.
Comments
Quickly browsing the games is anyway a good idea. Sometimes, it is clear that the third game is the hardest, and it might be a good idea to leave that for last.
As an aside, I was thinking: If LSAC really wanted to test Analytical Reasoning ability instead of the ability to "fool-proof" and memorize a few repeatable tricks, then they would make all four games unconventional. I'm wondering what @"Jonathan Wang" would say about that.
Its an interesting idea but i think it may psych one out too much, especially if they are stumped on how to do the game, it could potentially ruin the rest of your section.
I think if one is cateful to not go into autopilot when doing standard games, one will be better equipped to deal with misc. Games as a whole.
Many of these games are actually really easy. But LSAC know the way people study and how we tend to get so used to certain game types, they want to throw us for a loop
It's not really a question of throwing us for a loop; it's the only real way to purely test analytical reasoning ability. Regurgitating inferences you've memorized doesn't really show the ability they're testing for. It's just much easier to keep the test standardized if you just come up with different versions of the same games over and over.
Unique games often pose a real challenge. I think our primary goal should be to minimize all damage the game might pose to our section's score. This means that we should be comfortable implementing a three pronged strategy to the section:
1.We must be entirely comfortable with and confident in the other non-unique games in the section, preferably getting all of the questions in the section not counting the unique game correct.
2.We must be comfortable skipping the unique game and collecting the other available points in the section. I believe the paradigmatic example of a section where the skipping of a game is useful is PT 77. Once we realize the difficulty in Game 3, we should get out of there and get the points in game 4, otherwise we might create a situation where we waste time in game three and the timing issues spill over to game 4 and we turn a section that could have been a -2 into a section that is a -5 or a -6. Faced with a unique game our goal should be to collect all points we can in a smart way.
A.We should read every.single.word. of the unique game like it is a 10 million dollar contract. I'm serious about this. PT 75 Game 4 is a game that I would say requires such a close reading. We should patiently read the rules.
B.We should have in our arsenal a flexible way of attacking unique games through practice: what I mean by this is that if a unique game does not conform to something we are comfortable with, this should not be a problem for us.
C.We should take comfort in the fact that the majority of unique games from newer PTs have 5 questions. This is according to my understanding. Normally, 2 or 3 of the questions can be answered with a cursory understanding of the unique game. We must locate those questions and get those points. Normally this means we employ a skipping strategy on the unique game itself. For an example of how we might approach a unique game with a skipping strategy please see pt 72 Game 4. Questions 19, Question 20 and Question 23 can all be answered with a rudimentary understanding of the game's basic mechanics. Question 20 is simply put: the explicit spelling out of the game's hidden inference, something that we should have found with a proper application of steps A and B.
Taken together what does this all add up to? Put simply, a strategy like the one above should (if properly implemented) put us in a position to never miss more than 3 questions on an LG section. If perfected: puts us in a position to never miss more than 1.
Note: all of the above is much easier said than done. I have done over 2,000 games and am just now to the point where I rarely miss 2 questions. Find a strategy that works for you and hone it till test day, there is even a chance that you might not have to implement it come test day: PT 78 for instance.
I hope this helps
David
@BinghamtonDave Wow! Great advice! Over 2000 games? That's incredible!
I think the best way to do weird games is to just adjust some game boards you're already familiar with to fit the weirdness of the new game
A couple of different things I think have helped me with unconventional games.
First is just getting really efficient and quick at getting the easy/traditional games right in the section. I think it's pretty safe to assume there's going to be at least 2 simpler or conventional games. If you can solve them and leave yourself plenty of time for any harder games, you'll already be in a good position going into them.
Second is just practicing on all the released games that are a bit non-traditional. They aren't likely to be the same or even similar to what you may encounter come your administration, but it helps to have practice dealing with these games. You just have to get in the habit of switching over to a more "out of the box" approach to these games. I've found the secret is to stay calm and approach them like any other game. If you get stuck, just start diagramming what you can. Look to see if there's a standard acceptable situation question to help guide you, or inform how your set up should look.
I think @BinghamtonDave "the LG master" has the best advice with games, so definitely implement all of his advice/strategies.
Great points here. Sounds like the consensus is to sequentially go through each game until you come against the unique one and just outright skip it and come back to it at the end without trying it out at all.
any unconventional games in the CC? Im curious to see what they look like as I have not come across any in my PTS.
Yup -- I think there's a miscellaneous games section of problem sets. And some of the earlier PTs you'll run into while fool proofing the LG bundle included with your Ultimate + package will expose you to many of them as well. Then you'll start seeing them pop up during your PT phase, mostly beginning in the 50s and continuing on into the current PTs in the 80s.
I think a helpful thing to keep in mind is that the only thing unorthodox about certain logic games is the way that entities can interact. The logic that dictates how they interact in particular scenarios never changes.
Upon that you can guide your focus towards mastering your conceptualization of game prompts, particularly the ones that throw you for a loop. I like to go to the extent of vividly imagining the situation as if it were a real life event that had nothing to do with a test or some kind of problem solving. Actually picture two people picking clothes from a closet. Picture their bodies and the objects they interact with and the environment that affects them. Give them human characteristics in your head. Maybe "T" is a "shy" entity because he only likes to be paired with other entities of his breed.
Once you have the conceptualization and diagram down, irregular games are just like regular ones because the logic is the same. Being able to accurately and efficiently diagram irregular games is typically the hard part, and ultimately your ability to do that is a product of your ability to grip the prompt on a literal level. With standard games, the literal scenario is so familiar to us that we don't really have to think about it when converting it into a diagram. Unorthodox games test our ability to translate word problems, so to speak.
Try going through old PT LGs, and only read the prompt and rules. Take a few minutes to visualize the scenario, and imagine how the nuances presented in the rules could manifest in the literal scenario given to you. Think about how those literal nuances could appear in the form of logic, or on a diagram. Assuming you've already done a lot of LG practice, you don't even need to attempt the questions. Practicing the visualization, conceptualization, and translation of irregular scenarios is a time efficient way to isolate the skills needed to succeed when a prompt catches you off guard.
Part of me thinks that it's unreasonable to ask someone to take a test where it's impossible to predict the mechanics being tested, but the other part of me thinks that's the ultimate equalizer and precisely what needs to be done. It would certainly place a heavy burden on test writers and would almost certainly ruin the appearance of standardization. By which I mean, they could probably engineer a set of 'unconventional' games that would result in the same distribution of results as a set of 'standard' games, but good luck convincing anyone that you can compare across tests if that happens. In turn, that makes the entire exercise moot since a non-standard standardized test is actually just useless.
That said, I think it's also important to recognize that the skill of being able to apply old things to new situations should not be understated, and the test must be learnable in order to achieve its goal of leveling the playing field. So while I don't mind seeing more unconventional games as they've started to appear in recent years, honestly I'd prefer for them to just introduce games that are just difficult implementations of simple concepts.
One in particular from the late 60s (being purposely vague here for possible spoilers, though I'm sure some of you folks will know which game I'm referring to) is a great example and possibly my favorite logic game out of the last five or so years . It's a straight up sequencing game and every rule is one that you've seen before if you've done any prep at all - utterly standard. There are very few spoon-fed inferences, but a TON of important interactions if you care to look for them. It's 7 questions long, and the questions are beautifully crafted to reward good on-the-fly analysis. There's enough time to get through if you solve the questions "elegantly", but not nearly enough if you're reduced to brute force. I bet that kind of game is hard to create, but when it happens it's marvelous.
I wouldn't be surprised to see LSAC go further down the unconventional route though. LG props up enough scores as it is.