Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.6K All Categories
- 27.5K LSAT
- 16.7K General
- 5.1K Logical Reasoning
- 1.3K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 73 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 10 Scholarships
- 193 Test Center Reviews
- 2.1K Study Groups
- 109 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 3 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 42 October 2023 LSAT
- 12 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 23 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.9K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 599 Technical Problems
- 277 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Trouble improving on LG
Caleb.rohr.church
Alum Member
Hello helpful 7sage community!
I've been having trouble improving my LG score to where I want it to be. So far I have fool-proofed over 40 games. I did everything game from preptest 62-71. I have a huge excel spreadsheet of timing, attempt #, quality ( I only allow myself to miss one question @ 7sage's suggested time before I consider it mastered.) My average on the sections is about -13. It's really holding me back. I am in a comfortable range with the rest of the sections and should be scoring around a 160, but due to the LG section I am around a 155. Any suggestions would be helpful.
Comments
Fool proofing requires that you do a game until you get -0 on it well under 7Sage's recommended time. So a 7 minute recommended time game should be done around 4 minutes going -0.
Also, fool proofing from only 40 games is simply inadequate. The recommended starting point for fool proofing is PTs 1-35, which would be 140 games.
It took me about 3 months and over 600 game attempts to start approaching a consistent -0 on timed sections.
I think you just need to do way more LG.
I understand that fool proofing requires -0 on the LG. However, I am not trying to hit perfection just -4 so I changed it to fit my goals. Perhaps that wasn't a good idea. I do need to do more LG. Is there book you know of that has LG 1-35 that I could go through? I need to get some more practice in. Thanks!
Go on amazon and type logic games lsat prep test 20-39 or 1-19. Buy those and do those logic games a thousand times. Obviously don't write on the book that way you can reuse several times. This is what I have been doing…. I am now at an inconsistent -2/-3….Not the desired -0, but better than what I used to be, which was like -6 to -8
I didn't modify the Fool Proof strategy and after fool proofing 40+ games I am at -4. A good rule of thumb on this test is to prepare as if you are striving for 180, otherwise you can fall victim to a false floor as you may have done.
I recommend upgrading the 7Sage package to get access to those games and PTs. I'm not being paid to say that. With 7Sage, you get digital copies of the entire PT which makes things easier. If money is an issue, you can always search amazon for the LGs.
Thank you! That's more what I was getting at. Since you've fool proofed around the same amount of games as I have and are seeing way better results than I am I wonder what I'n doing wrong. My friend who I am studying with hasn't fool proofed at all and is getting -0 on the sections. My intuition says that there is perhaps a better way than fool proofing for me to learn the games and that one doesn't necessarily need to fool proof all games 1-35 as suggested.
@"Caleb.rohr.church" We all bring different skill sets to this test. My cousin studied for one month and not only scored a 173 but actually left the test center early because he "had somewhere to be" lol. Me, on the other hand, I scored a 146 on my diagnostic.
I started out going -12 or worse on games. I couldn't have improved without fool-proofing all that games. But it's not enough to just do them and then do them under time -0. You really have to study the inner-workings of the games. Understand why we are using a graph here instead of a normal grouping board. Keep track of your inferences and especially the ones you keep missing. Go back to games you've completed and practice splitting even on games that you wouldn't have never split. Once the procedural skills become second-nature, focus on the higher level aspects. Are you forgetting to think about the games before moving on to questions? Are you writing neatly? Are you being as methodical as you can be? Practice skipping games and questions.
For someone like us who is naturally disadvantaged toward games, a thorough, in depth, and studious approach is required.
Powerscore has two books called LSAT Game Type Training that have all the games from PT 1-40. Volume 2 is out of print, but can be bought on Amazon, and the like.
But it's not enough to just do them and then do them under time -0. You really have to study the inner-workings of the games.
This is so key. As usual @jkatz1488 spitting awesome LSAT knowledge. I'll just add that it can be extremely disadvantageous to practice fool-proofing games only with splitting game boards. Although splitting game boards is a very useful technique, it often does not allow you to see and understand the inferences and truly comprehend how all the rules are working together to push out inferences. I highly recommend trying every game without splitting game boards, even when ultimately, splitting game boards proves to be the most efficient way to solve the game.
@uhinberg
I think this is a very smart and neglected approach. Not splitting on games that probably should be split, especially if you are semi-familiar with game, is a great way to develop our visualization. We practice splitting everything so that we can actually make the decision to split or not to split carefully knowing that we have the skills to split confidently. But as uhinberg points out, the flip side of that coin is to NOT split and do that confidently too. Pure sequencing and in/out games are great for this.
and thanks!
keep keep keep doing games and then watching 7sage explanations. The fact that these are free is an insane gift to the world. That is all there is to it - I even watch the games where i get -0 to see how JY does it. I don't watch the full thing just the set up on the games i am confident in.
I still have a ways to go but I went from getting -3/4 per game to -0/-2 on a very difficult game. I remember on my first diagnostic I got ALL of them wrong. Logic games is so super learnable.