Top Law Schools

So I bombed the Dec LSAT. I had beautiful scores in the RC and LR's, but my LG score was literally so bad (SO BAD) that it undid all my other sections to a 165. Which was devastating, since I was realistically aiming for the 170s. I have a 3.95 and wanted to go to a T5 this cycle. I don't know what I'm doing wrong--I see so many people improving their LG to the -1 range. I don't get why I can't get there, or even close. I've taken a Powerscore class and I've studied copiously. I don't get it--my other sections are (-1) to (-3) consistently. But my LG is keeping me from the 170s.

Has anyone improved their LG through a different method/procedure of tackling the LG section? Or read something that catalyzed a breakthrough? Or have any unorthodox method/advice on the LG? I've already been through all the LSAT material, so I kind of feel screwed, but I'm willing to try something different or, err, anything really. Any advice guys? :/

Have you read Power Score's or Manhattan's logic game guides?

Do you drill games by category?

Drilling by category certainly helps a lot, as the above poster said. One other thing that really helped me achieve at least something of a breakthrough was being very, very measured at the beginning of the game; read the rules carefully, construct very neat diagrams, and take some time to think about inferences and do not get discouraged if you don't make them right away. Too often, I was misreading a rule, constructing scrawled and messy diagrams, or panicking when I didn't make inferences within a shot amount of time, but once I stopped doing all those things, I improved. Used to be -6 to -10 on games, but now it seems I've improved to something along the lines of -4 to -7, in part at least because of that. I feel your pain though, because in spite of my improvements I still find LG extremely stressful and I could still easily be absolutely flattened by some of the hard games, which I simply cannot afford if I'm going to get the score I want.

Repetition is key too. Pithypikes is very credited, http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... =6&t=41657

Once youve done 50 simple ordering games, youll start to breeze through them in well under 8 minutes.

So I actually went from averages of about -12, to -8, to -6, and now typically -1 to -2 (although I did get a -4 on last section). I think the key is to recognize there are only so many types of questions they can ask on LGs. For example, they usually ask a "which is a possible order" for which you just eliminate each one, using the rules they establish. Then they'll ususally ask a question about which "could be true" or which "must be true." For these I've realized they aren't as difficult as the test writers would have you believe. Most of the answers can be eliminated by the conditions set forth at the begining of the game. For instance they may say which of the following is a pair that can be placed in group 4. Well the game will dictates some rules that allow you to immediately eliminate most of the incorrect answers and leaves you with only one or two scenarios you actually have to try.

I really recommend drilling by type. Do a game, then immediately after, do it again with 7sage.com (they're explanations are free, and actually do the game question by question with him, don't just watch). I took a week off of work, did games 12 hrs a day for 4 or 5 days and that's how I got to where I am now.

I really hope this helps, I remember getting extremely frustrated with this section. Especially because I kept seeing posts that said it was "learnable" but I couldnt grasp it.

You're in a great place in my opinion, you only have one section to work on, and 4 weeks to master it (if you re-take in Feb). Im struggling with LR and there are 2 sections of it. If you have any advice on LR please share!

I was in a similar boat when I started prepping - my first PT was a 166, and while LR just needed refining (timing, understanding common patterns for assumption questions, understanding parallel questions) and RC was great (just timing), I really needed to work on LG basics.

The KEY thing that moved my PTs up from lower 170s average to upper 170s average was when my LG prep work began to look very clean, and my work throughout stayed clean. Basically, I learned to turn everything into a straight ordering or grouping format so that I could keep incredibly consistent rows and columns. I really devised my own method, but Powerscore's seems like a good one to begin with - just don't force yourself to use their system symbol for symbol - if you need to tweak something to make it work for you, do it. For example, I didn't really write down relationships on a side chart because it cluttered things too much, but I would write down for every trial all the inferences and rules that would directly show - I just felt more comfortable glancing at the rules often to make sure I didn't forget anything. And not forgetting or misremembering things was the last step to me averaging -0-1 with time to spare on LG. Once I was confident in all my inferences, by keeping things in order, it was really easy for me to use previous trials to eliminate answer choices as I went along.

Also, I really recommend doing the early tests for LG - they have a lot more visual/mapping ones that require you to use a bit of imagination, and it's those that really seem to throw people for a loop nowadays, since the normal LG section now is 1st-level ordering, 1st-level grouping, 2nd-level ordering, 2nd-level grouping. But lately, they've been going back to the type of creative mapping ones - I thought the voicemail game was pretty simple because of that earlier prep, whereas most people found it very strange. (Not that voicemails was a mapping game, but having an open mind and imagination can really help diagram the curveball set-ups.) I think I overall ended up doing 50 LG sections total while prepping, compared to about 30 PTs total (I didn't do extra work on RC or LR sections but PTs and review).

For what it's worth, I took the LSAT in Dec 2012 for the first time, studied three months for it, and got a 177. What kept me sane the day scores were released was knowing for sure I had aced the LG, and when I had aced the LG on my PTs, that was a huge signal that I had been really focused.

<('.'<)

I was absolutely TERRIBLE at Logic Games for a long time after I started studying. I think the key is just to do a ridiculous number of LGs. Do every game you can find 2-3 times. Seriously. After a while they become much more intuitive. After a lot of studying I went -3 on LG on the December test and will be aiming for -0 in February. You can totally do it! It's just a question of sheer repetition.