How bad were you at logic games to start? Forum

[njgal]

To the OP: Don't worry - LG is everyone's worst section in the beginning. I know people who went from around -20 to near perfection. I went from -17 or -18 to -4 on the actual test. As everyone has stated, it is the most learnable section.

Please don't be frazzled by people professing to score -5 on their initial timed diagnostic on LG. They are full of shit.

This is a really crazy and bitter comment. Some people are actually naturally good at games. I'm not one of those people, but that doesn't mean I have to deny their existence.

I actually was one of those people....I got -1 on my original diagnostic. However I sucked at RC and LG. OP should be happy because LG are much more learnable than RC which is my most problematic area.

[dub]

To the OP: Don't worry - LG is everyone's worst section in the beginning. I know people who went from around -20 to near perfection. I went from -17 or -18 to -4 on the actual test. As everyone has stated, it is the most learnable section.

Please don't be frazzled by people professing to score -5 on their initial timed diagnostic on LG. They are full of shit.

This is a really crazy and bitter comment. Some people are actually naturally good at games. I'm not one of those people, but that doesn't mean I have to deny their existence.

yeah, super bitter.

[Audio Technica Guy]

Please don't be frazzled by people professing to score -5 on their initial timed diagnostic on LG. They are full of shit.

As someone who has seen a ton of people taking their first ever test, you are absolutely talking out of your ass here. Sure, it's not common, but I'd say about one out of 20 people miss 5 or fewer the first time they do a LG section.

[shutterbug]

To the OP: Don't worry - LG is everyone's worst section in the beginning. I know people who went from around -20 to near perfection. I went from -17 or -18 to -4 on the actual test. As everyone has stated, it is the most learnable section.

Please don't be frazzled by people professing to score -5 on their initial timed diagnostic on LG. They are full of shit.

This is a really crazy and bitter comment. Some people are actually naturally good at games. I'm not one of those people, but that doesn't mean I have to deny their existence.

Sorry - didn't at all mean to come off sounding so harsh & bitter. I wanted to give the OP encouragement. I can buy that some very, very select people can handle LG right off the bat, and power to them. I find it difficult to believe the all the "i just did my first timed diag and scored 170" people on this site.

[pattymac]

I couldn't handle a basic linear game when i started. I was like -15. Now I'm anywhere from -9 to -5...on the older PTs, which are generally considered much more difficult...might sound dumb but I'm comfortable with games b/c I've shown flashes of potential. I can do a game in 3-4 minutes with no problem once I know whats going on. My problem now is settling down and performing under time constraints.

I think it really is all about familiarity and trusting your instincts. Make it a plan to master every game from pt 7-60 and you'll be golden .

[gocats999]

Please don't be frazzled by people professing to score -5 on their initial timed diagnostic on LG. They are full of shit.

As someone who has seen a ton of people taking their first ever test, you are absolutely talking out of your ass here. Sure, it's not common, but I'd say about one out of 20 people miss 5 or fewer the first time they do a LG section.

i missed 4 on my first LG. well i didn't get to 2 of them, so i guess i missed 6. still, you get my point.

[SentinelsOfEvil]

To the OP: Don't worry - LG is everyone's worst section in the beginning. I know people who went from around -20 to near perfection. I went from -17 or -18 to -4 on the actual test. As everyone has stated, it is the most learnable section.

Please don't be frazzled by people professing to score -5 on their initial timed diagnostic on LG. They are full of shit.

This is a really crazy and bitter comment. Some people are actually naturally good at games. I'm not one of those people, but that doesn't mean I have to deny their existence.

Sorry - didn't at all mean to come off sounding so harsh & bitter. I wanted to give the OP encouragement. I can buy that some very, very select people can handle LG right off the bat, and power to them. I find it difficult to believe the all the "i just did my first timed diag and scored 170" people on this site.

i'm actually one of those people... my first ever LG section was flawless... they just come naturally to me... my RC section on the other hand was terrible... people have different aptitudes for different sections and LG is not necessarily everyone's toughest section... although it does seem like the most learnable section...

[cshanson]

I was pretty awful for the first 2 months of prep; didn't feel like I was getting anywhere. But it started to come together after a lot of practice. I'd say be patient. The brain needs a lot of time to reprogram itself.

[sconnielaw13]

I started out missing about 12 on average. I then worked through the bible and LG section after LG section and got my average to about -0 to -2. On the actual day of the test I ended up getting 3 wrong. LG actually went from being my worst to my best section. Also once you learn it you will love it because I think it is the only section that you pretty much know if you answered the question right or not because of your ability to check the answers.

So if you put the effort in you can definetly master the LG section! Best of luck to you!

[quasi-stellar]

It's funny now that I think of the first test I ever attempted.. I got so bogged down with the games section that I said "f##k it!" after first game and moved down to the next section. But it wasnt even the real test as far as I remember, rather some replica from McGraw book.

But yeah, early on I could get about half correct at best on the real PT's. Got somewhat better since, but still nowhere near perfect. I found the other two sections much easier to master than games

[Day2Daze]

Im a month into my LG prep and gone from -12 in games to -3, so big improvement is definitely doable.
My LG Arsenal:
LG Bible, Ultimate Setups (PS), at LEAST 20 PT sections (im using 30), another good LG guide of your choice

Pick your classification method then divide up the games you have from different PT's into those types. As you work through the Bible, find corresponding chapters in your alternative book. Find a good strategy for YOU. After going through the books, drill the hell out of the actual lsat games for that type. Any that were hard or you got questions wrong in- save. Review them heavily and write out the ideal set-up for the game. Do some games from the Ultimate Setups book so you can see a thorough explanation. Repeat games that gave you trouble throughout your studying. Repetition and understanding why you are getting things wrong is what will improve your score the most Goodluck!! (if you dont wanna shell out for the Ultimate Setups there are some really good explanations online at places like LSATblog, on here etc.)

[BigA]

Terrible. I started out getting like 8 questions right. Even after LGB wasn't much better. I did every game twice and now I can get through three games at least. Gonna do all the games again before Oct exam.

[MBZags]

I went from not even knowing where to start (seriously) to routinely getting -2 or less. I got -3 on test day, but I chalked it up to nerves.

[youknowryan]

Initially: I could not finish a game b/c i has no idea how to attack them.

Past (no study): basic linear games were the only ones I could complete. Even then they took 30 minutes EACH and I would often miss some of the local questions. Advanced linear and grouping: forget about it.

Present (much study): linear games take no more than 8-9 minutes, and accuracy is very close to 100% every time. Advanced linear and grouping now take about 10-12 minutes on average and accuracy is 90%-ish.

Future 1 (even more study): linear games will take 7 minutes or less and advanced linear and grouping games will be doable in 8-9 minutes with 100% accuracy.

Future 1 (yet even more study): same as above but all games are done in 32 minutes with 100% accuracy.

If I can do it, then anyone can.

[ConLawLover]

First LG: -5, LSAT: -0

[McNulty]

I was also one of the outliers whose initial PT had a perfect LG, but, as others have said, my LR and RC was brutal. Ended up with a 159... you do the math.

I think you should be optimistic because if there's one section that is suitable for improvement via repetition, it's LG.

The difference between LG and the others must be a left-right brain issue.

[dominkay]

I was also one of the outliers whose initial PT had a perfect LG, but, as others have said, my LR and RC was brutal. Ended up with a 159... you do the math.

I think you should be optimistic because if there's one section that is suitable for improvement via repetition, it's LG.

The difference between LG and the others must be a left-right brain issue.

To put it in elementary school terms, I think it's as basic Being Good at English vs. Being Good at Math. I know Logic Games aren't EXACTLY math, but they're close.

Luckily for those of us who are good at English, it's 3/4 of the test.

[094320]

..

[BigA]

I was also one of the outliers whose initial PT had a perfect LG, but, as others have said, my LR and RC was brutal. Ended up with a 159... you do the math.

I think you should be optimistic because if there's one section that is suitable for improvement via repetition, it's LG.

The difference between LG and the others must be a left-right brain issue.

To put it in elementary school terms, I think it's as basic Being Good at English vs. Being Good at Math. I know Logic Games aren't EXACTLY math, but they're close.

Luckily for those of us who are good at English, it's 3/4 of the test.

I just don't agree with this. I was always an advanced math student. I didn't pursue it in college but it was my best subject. Yet I'm one of the worst on this site at Logic games. I don't really feel that my math skills are tested at all, unfortunately.

[094320]

..

[truffleshuffle]

Both tap into similar reasoning, though admittedly a lot of people are thrown by the format of logic games. Those who pursued advanced math in college should be good at these. I'll be surprised if anyone here was a math major(with good grades) and did poorly on logic games after adjusting to format.

Only math class in undergrad was statistics, not good at math in general. Got -0 on logic games in June. At the beginning I got like 20% right, but eventually it clicked. I had to do geometry proofs in high school that were similar, I think that helped.

[094320]

..

[BigA]

I guess that must be it then. Fortunately I'm able to nail the numbers vs. percentage questions that come up once every few tests That's about all my math skills gets me. Oh and I nailed mulch on the June test, which a lot of people considered a tough game. The pattern jumped out at me. Too bad there aren't more games like that.

[fosterp]

Some of the inferences that are drawn in the LGB for setups that make some of the later questions very trivial seem to confuse me on how I was supposed to just "see" that. For example...on page 98 of the LGB for game 2 on sep1998 test, the explanation draws a "not law" for s in the 3rd spot. S, which is supposed to be a free random, is somehow determined that it cannot fit into that space because a hypothetical involving that variable there would be impossible to draw. Now how is one supposed to draw that kind of inference as they are drawing the diagram? Is hypothetically placing variables supposed to be part of the diagram drawing? The explanation proves this not law by inferring a chain of about 4 other resulting variables with the last one being impossible, thus proving the S cannot be placed in that spot. I don't understand how someone could "see" this short of having some godlike ability of juggling variables in their head *very* quickly.

Now I don't quite remember how that inference impacted the questions since its been a few days, but I just remember looking at that explanation and comparing it to my diagram and wondering how the f they got that out of the rules. There seems to be a few more games following that where inferences are drawn from seemingly unrelated rules, that in turn make some of the questions trivial. Is being able to draw these inferences the secret to really getting games done fast? And is there a method I can use to help me see these?

[094320]

..