Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 13 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 111 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 31 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 636 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Suggested change for LG foolproof method
vanessa fisher
Alum Member
This may just be me, so take it for what it is worth, but I think changing the LG foolproof bundle to include all LG games from 60s and 70s would be perhaps more useful that games from 20s and 30s. I mean they are ALL good practice, but I think the 60s and 70s (and 80s) games are more reflective of current games and are the best ones to foolproof. The "minus or add a rule" that was common on earlier games doesn't ever show up in the 60s and after. The substitution question (which has been a bitch for me to get the hang of) shows up on nearly every test from the 60s on and will likely show up on the next test. I wish I'd spent my foolproofing time on the substitution questions rather than the minus or add rule, the latter which will probably be irrelevant on the next test.
Just saying for me I think foolproofing later games is potentially more valuable (particularly 60s onward). I think there are some great weird games in the early tests worth doing, but also some that seem pretty unrepresentative of current tests. So I think doing early games is a great idea, but I think focusing foolproofing on later games is smarter.
Any thoughts?
Comments
Yeah, I think you're absolutely right that the games in the more recent tests are way more representative but I think it's important to learn with the older games simply so you don't burn the newer tests. Otherwise, I completely agree with you.
Ideally, you should be fool proofing every game you come across after each practice test. This way you will get exposed to and fool proof the newer games as well!
Do later games in PT's, learn fundamentals from earlier tests
Agree with above posters. 1-35 is to develop the fundamentals. Once you do a timed PT, you can always fool proof thereafter. Don't burn the material though.
@"Alex Divine"and @Euthyphro yeah I agree about the issue of burning through new PTs. I think for me, learning the fundamentals through the earlier tests really helped. I just think the focus on foolproofing games that aren't really representative might have been a bit of a waste of time. Well, I say that in retrospect I guess. Maybe a more carefully selected set of games to foolproof from 1-35 that are more based on fundamentals and representative games might have been better. I'm now foolproofing games from 60-81, which I think is necessary to really do well (LG is my weakest section), so I better fucking be ready by test day
@AllezAllez21 yeah I've already done all the games from 60-79, as I've done all those tests. I"m taking the exam in Sept
I think the main reason they don't really advocate this is because most people will use the later PT's as timed PT's. If it works for you though, that is great !
@TheMikey yes fair point
Aside from the miscellaneous game that abound in earlier preptests, which of the earlier games are not representative of what LSAC is likely to throw at us? Granted, some of the rules are a bit different (e.g. conditional rules in sequencing games) and there is a new question type, but aren't the non-miscellaneous games, for the most part, very similar in structure?
I think they are great practice and very similar in structure, but I have noticed that some of the newer games are more rule driven and don't give us a very detailed diagram like some of the older games. The old PTs are still pretty representative and great practice though.
that's why I'm glad I've always done the approach I've done and told you about. I just let the questions drive me with what game board I will make, then once I have some game boards, I just do the MBT and CBT questions.
Yeah dude ... Exactly! I remember you being the first person to help me with logic games sooo long ago. I remember when I just straight up couldn't do grouping games and you telling me to get 7Sage!
I like my approach so much better, I got it from this guy on TLS. I used to always be iffy on making all game boards for certain games, but I still think doing that is a good approach. It could be useful, but I feel like it can backfire when it comes to doing weird games since people will be used to solving for all possibilities beforehand. Idk, just my opinion but I could be wrong.
Hey guys, we are planning to release drill sets for LG and RC similar to the drill sets you currently have for LR (assuming you have Ultimate+). So at some point, there will be say, a bundle of sequencing games from PTs 50-59, 60-69, etc. that you can easily print out and fool-proof.
It's been harder to get this done than we had anticipated. I'm hopeful we can release before the December LSAT.