Top Law Schools

I am currently drilling basic and advanced linear logic games (Pithypike style). I have noticed I do not do a couple things quite as PS recommends, and I am wondering if that's a big mistake.

1. I usually start diagramming the rules right away instead of reading them all first. I do this because I feel like it is faster, and I have found I usually do not need to erase even when one rule builds on another (I can just tack it on to the original rule). I also feel like it is easier to see how one rule builds off another if you already have the first rule drawn out.

2. I don't always put not laws under my diagram. The reason is I am slow in doing so if I have a long chain, and have found that it is not always that important. For questions like, "which one of the following cannot be in spot 4," I usually can look at my rules and figure it out quickly from there. It seems like many of the questions are solved through hypos, and if you are naturally following your rules when you make the hypos, you obviously won't violate any not laws (which are of course derived from those rules).

3. I do not immediately star randoms. Once again, I feel like this wastes time as I am not always able to identify the random right away. Also, I usually expect there is at least one random, and there have been instances when there is not a random and I spend 30 seconds looking for one. During the course of the game I usually realize which variable is the random and I star it then, instead of looking for it at the very beginning.

I am curious if you think these are bad habits that I need to break now. Are there any people out there that routinely dominate linear games that feel like my approach is way off? I am still inexperienced, so it is very possible I just don’t realize how important PS’s advice on 1-3 are. Also, the reason I don’t do 1-3 is because I think it takes too much time, but if I routinely did 1-3, my guess is I would get a lot faster at it and it might not be an issue.

I don't use PS, so I don't know what all the things you're talking about are, but I do diagram my rules right away and don't think you'd be at a disadvantage for doing so.

Betharl wrote:I am currently drilling basic and advanced linear logic games (Pithypike style). I have noticed I do not do a couple things quite as PS recommends, and I am wondering if that's a big mistake.

1. I usually start diagramming the rules right away instead of reading them all first. I do this because I feel like it is faster, and I have found I usually do not need to erase even when one rule builds on another (I can just tack it on to the original rule). I also feel like it is easier to see how one rule builds off another if you already have the first rule drawn out.

2. I don't always put not laws under my diagram. The reason is I am slow in doing so if I have a long chain, and have found that it is not always that important. For questions like, "which one of the following cannot be in spot 4," I usually can look at my rules and figure it out quickly from there. It seems like many of the questions are solved through hypos, and if you are naturally following your rules when you make the hypos, you obviously won't violate any not laws (which are of course derived from those rules).

3. I do not immediately star randoms. Once again, I feel like this wastes time as I am not always able to identify the random right away. Also, I usually expect there is at least one random, and there have been instances when there is not a random and I spend 30 seconds looking for one. During the course of the game I usually realize which variable is the random and I star it then, instead of looking for it at the very beginning.

I am curious if you think these are bad habits that I need to break now. Are there any people out there that routinely dominate linear games that feel like my approach is way off? I am still inexperienced, so it is very possible I just don’t realize how important PS’s advice on 1-3 are. Also, the reason I don’t do 1-3 is because I think it takes too much time, but if I routinely did 1-3, my guess is I would get a lot faster at it and it might not be an issue.

I learned games through PS as well and also skipped these things you have mentioned. It is not a problem. Do what works for you and use the book as just a guide.

Edit: smartphowned

IMO, your approach is worthwhile. It saves you valuable time. PS methods are undeniably effective but that does not mean you can't tweak some of the methods to your advantage.

As you drill games, you will realize that there are tons of ways to improve speed and accuracy that PS alone cannot teach you. This should be quite obvious because you develop an intimacy with these games.

Don't be reluctant to incorporate new techniques or disregard others if they ultimately help your performance. Hope this helps!

Betharl wrote:I am currently drilling basic and advanced linear logic games (Pithypike style). I have noticed I do not do a couple things quite as PS recommends, and I am wondering if that's a big mistake.

1. I usually start diagramming the rules right away instead of reading them all first. I do this because I feel like it is faster, and I have found I usually do not need to erase even when one rule builds on another (I can just tack it on to the original rule). I also feel like it is easier to see how one rule builds off another if you already have the first rule drawn out.

2. I don't always put not laws under my diagram. The reason is I am slow in doing so if I have a long chain, and have found that it is not always that important. For questions like, "which one of the following cannot be in spot 4," I usually can look at my rules and figure it out quickly from there. It seems like many of the questions are solved through hypos, and if you are naturally following your rules when you make the hypos, you obviously won't violate any not laws (which are of course derived from those rules).

3. I do not immediately star randoms. Once again, I feel like this wastes time as I am not always able to identify the random right away. Also, I usually expect there is at least one random, and there have been instances when there is not a random and I spend 30 seconds looking for one. During the course of the game I usually realize which variable is the random and I star it then, instead of looking for it at the very beginning.

I am curious if you think these are bad habits that I need to break now. Are there any people out there that routinely dominate linear games that feel like my approach is way off? I am still inexperienced, so it is very possible I just don’t realize how important PS’s advice on 1-3 are. Also, the reason I don’t do 1-3 is because I think it takes too much time, but if I routinely did 1-3, my guess is I would get a lot faster at it and it might not be an issue.

While I agree with what the other posters said, I would caution you on a couple things. Since you are probably not far along in your LG prep, it can be a whole lot easier to throw things out later when you have mastered games and really need to focus on timing. I do not think that timing should be the chief concern at this point. I saw my speed in LGs come with my mastering the game types. However, I also write the rules out as I am going and always did that, never caused me a problem. I dont think you should be leaving out the "not laws" yet, simply because it reinforces certain skills that will be essential later on, when the games get more difficult. My biggest concern though is failing to note the random. When you write out the names in the beginning: A, B, C, D, E.... just put a little tick through each one that the rule has mentioned and circle the one that doesnt have one after you symbolize the rules... I promise you that this will take almost no time, maybe 10 extra seconds. If you master logic games, which should be your goal, that time lost will not matter.

Here is the thing you want to see happen with games: you want it to become a nearly mechanical process. You should get to the point where games become something that is not very mentally demanding, because you have mastered the skills associated with it. This will come with a lot of practice. However, one thing that happens on the test is that you may not be able to hold as many things in your mind at one time as your normally can. So, all of a sudden, that familiar mechanical process can become a fucking nightmare if you find yourself forgetting things like the random or the not laws. It really all depends on what works for you (like I said, I do the first and dont always do not laws), but remember the element of test pressure.

Great, thanks for the help everyone. I really appreciate the advice as I am not taking a class and don't have anyone to talk to about the LSAT outside of TLS.

Betharl wrote:Great, thanks for the help everyone. I really appreciate the advice as I am not taking a class and don't have anyone to talk to about the LSAT outside of TLS.

As everyone else stated, PS is GREAT for a guide but not everyone is the same / different things work for different people. Even PS books usually reccomend adjusting some things