are LG actually just not masterable for some people? Forum

[flash21]

Look guys, I bombed LG today . I couldnt even do rug game, period. I think I may have gotten the rule elim. question. Totally guessed all the other ones for that set. I think I got some here and there on the fourth game, but it was really time consuming too. All I could think was "what the fuck is happening to me right now" on the rug game, really rattled me throughout the second half of the LG section.

I dont know guys. I did cambridge, I did some of the more recent LG's, I just simply get owned sometimes. I usually do okay 15-18 range but damn, I really dont know about today. If I have to re-take, I dont know what to do about games. I guess I'll continue just repeating a shit load of them but I dont know if that really has worked for me past a certain point.

Feels bad man.

[mist4bison]

.

[flash21]

I used cambridge and 7sage, plus drilled from PT sections.

Yes, -0 untimed is pretty common.

A particular type? Not really. The hard ones give me a lot of trouble (I know this is a bad answer) , but like today rugs I couldn't even properly set it up. Game 4 was just time consuming but I believe I understood it much more than game 3.

[foundingfather]

keep at it

do at least one section every day as a warm up

re-do games untimed slowly if you have to. pick up the tempo eventually

read "The LSAT Trainer" by Mike Kim

retake

edit: and good luck

[mist4bison]

.

[flash21]

I used cambridge and 7sage, plus drilled from PT sections.

Yes, -0 untimed is pretty common.

A particular type? Not really. The hard ones give me a lot of trouble (I know this is a bad answer) , but like today rugs I couldn't even properly set it up. Game 4 was just time consuming but I believe I understood it much more than game 3.

Hmm. Well, to start, I'm a firm believer that anyone can master games. I really think that at some point it just kind of clicks with timing. It sounds like you have the actual fundamentals down based on you -0 untimed scores.

Today, do you think you could have done rugs if you had an extra 5-10 minutes? Was there one particular rule you didn't understand? (Don't note what it was here, if you did, obviously). Basically, I'm wondering if this was a fundamental thing or a timing/anxiety thing.

ETA: In your OP, do you mean you usually go 15-18 correct out of, say, 23?

Yes that is what I meant. But I think today I may have gotten literally 12 correct. I may have been able to do rugs with 10 more minutes, I dont know. I couldnt even set it up though. Even thinking now from what I remember I am like umm what?

[Smallville]

I used cambridge and 7sage, plus drilled from PT sections.

Yes, -0 untimed is pretty common.

A particular type? Not really. The hard ones give me a lot of trouble (I know this is a bad answer) , but like today rugs I couldn't even properly set it up. Game 4 was just time consuming but I believe I understood it much more than game 3.

Hmm. Well, to start, I'm a firm believer that anyone can master games. I really think that at some point it just kind of clicks with timing. It sounds like you have the actual fundamentals down based on you -0 untimed scores.

Today, do you think you could have done rugs if you had an extra 5-10 minutes? Was there one particular rule you didn't understand? (Don't note what it was here, if you did, obviously). Basically, I'm wondering if this was a fundamental thing or a timing/anxiety thing.

ETA: In your OP, do you mean you usually go 15-18 correct out of, say, 23?

Yes that is what I meant. But I think today I may have gotten literally 12 correct. I may have been able to do rugs with 10 more minutes, I dont know. I couldnt even set it up though. Even thinking now from what I remember I am like umm what?

sounds like you just psych yourself out. Have you tried just closing ur eyes and taking some deep breaths? although it is timed taking 15 sec or so to just breath and relax may help you to take a step back, reexamine the rules n parts of the game and put it all together. obviously you can do it, but you need to work on time. if you feel you can't do it you'll trip yourself up and freak out for the rest of the game putting you on edge and setting yourself up to do the same on subsequent games

[mist4bison]

.

[Ron Don Volante]

of course for "some people" they are not "masterable." But an average college grad with the right material and work ethic should be able to effectively master them, yes.

[Wieters]

Manhattan offers a bunch of free games that they have produced. I found these games to incidentally be more difficult than the real games, but more importantly they were naturally different in wording (ie clumsier) than the real games. After doing most all of these games, I found the real section to be significantly easier.

A real section is structured such that a test taker can conceivably complete all four games in the allotted time. The Manhattan games, conversely, are not. That being said, I have been doing logic games for long enough that I instinctively shoot to complete any game within a time period (10 minutes max), and the Manhattan games were no exception. Although I was rarely successful in completing the Manhattan games in good time, I was forced to work harder on more difficult games such that when I took real sections, the individual games were not only easier, but further there seemed to be an internal coherence in that the four games were manageable when taken together.

Furthermore, the Manhattan LSAT games are understandably clunkier than the real things. Having done these games, though, I came to appreciate how bulletproof the real games are. They are impeccably crafted, which means that you have all the tools at your disposal.

On a separate note, I think that games, more than anything else, take time. Your skills not only have to be high, but further you must be comfortable enough that you know you can get through all four. Know that the test has been designed this way. This sort of comfort really doesn't come from understanding explanations on 7Sage or realizing your mistakes per se, but rather through the realization that a section taken in its entirety can only throw so much at you.

An important realization that I came to was that, assuming high skills at LG, anyone can get all of the questions right if given unlimited time. The test, though, does not care whether you can get to the right answer in an unlimited amount of time. Instead, the LSAT generally, and LG specifically, is time-pressured. What this means for LG is that you cannot mull over different diagramming options, probe for endless inferences, or flesh out every single answer choice. Instead, you have to be something like a heat-seeking missile en route to the correct answer choice. For MBT/CNBT, actively search for the right answer at various stages. For CBT/NNT, actively eliminate the wrong answer choices. Pick a way to diagram and run with it. Attach the rules to your very cerebral cortex and use them as a hammer against the questions. A diagram is a helpful tool, but ultimately the only thing you need is a solid understanding of the rules. I have been able to ace a medium/difficult game with time running out not by using a diagram but rather just using the rules themselves.

FWIW, this is from the kind of LGer who couldn't figure out a single game during my initial diagnostic, but PTed at -0/-1 before the December test and most likely went -0 on the real thing today.

[M.M.]

Manhattan offers a bunch of free games that they have produced. I found these games to incidentally be more difficult than the real games, but more importantly they were naturally different in wording (ie clumsier) than the real games. After doing most all of these games, I found the real section to be significantly easier.

A real section is structured such that a test taker can conceivably complete all four games in the allotted time. The Manhattan games, conversely, are not. That being said, I have been doing logic games for long enough that I instinctively shoot to complete any game within a time period (10 minutes max), and the Manhattan games were no exception. Although I was rarely successful in completing the Manhattan games in good time, I was forced to work harder on more difficult games such that when I took real sections, the individual games were not only easier, but further there seemed to be an internal coherence in that the four games were manageable when taken together.

Furthermore, the Manhattan LSAT games are understandably clunkier than the real things. Having done these games, though, I came to appreciate how bulletproof the real games are. They are impeccably crafted, which means that you have all the tools at your disposal.

On a separate note, I think that games, more than anything else, take time. Your skills not only have to be high, but further you must be comfortable enough that you know you can get through all four. Know that the test has been designed this way. This sort of comfort really doesn't come from understanding explanations on 7Sage or realizing your mistakes per se, but rather through the realization that a section taken in its entirety can only throw so much at you.

An important realization that I came to was that, assuming high skills at LG, anyone can get all of the questions right if given unlimited time. The test, though, does not care whether you can get to the right answer in an unlimited amount of time. Instead, the LSAT generally, and LG specifically, is time-pressured. What this means for LG is that you cannot mull over different diagramming options, probe for endless inferences, or flesh out every single answer choice. Instead, you have to be something like a heat-seeking missile en route to the correct answer choice. For MBT/CNBT, actively search for the right answer at various stages. For CBT/NNT, actively eliminate the wrong answer choices. Pick a way to diagram and run with it. Attach the rules to your very cerebral cortex and use them as a hammer against the questions. A diagram is a helpful tool, but ultimately the only thing you need is a solid understanding of the rules. I have been able to ace a medium/difficult game with time running out not by using a diagram but rather just using the rules themselves.

FWIW, this is from the kind of LGer who couldn't figure out a single game during my initial diagnostic, but PTed at -0/-1 before the December test and most likely went -0 on the real thing today.

I've taken and mastered the manhattan games a couple times Lel and get owned on LG. got destroyed today. after so many hours of practice. I love life.

[Wieters]

Manhattan offers a bunch of free games that they have produced. I found these games to incidentally be more difficult than the real games, but more importantly they were naturally different in wording (ie clumsier) than the real games. After doing most all of these games, I found the real section to be significantly easier.

A real section is structured such that a test taker can conceivably complete all four games in the allotted time. The Manhattan games, conversely, are not. That being said, I have been doing logic games for long enough that I instinctively shoot to complete any game within a time period (10 minutes max), and the Manhattan games were no exception. Although I was rarely successful in completing the Manhattan games in good time, I was forced to work harder on more difficult games such that when I took real sections, the individual games were not only easier, but further there seemed to be an internal coherence in that the four games were manageable when taken together.

Furthermore, the Manhattan LSAT games are understandably clunkier than the real things. Having done these games, though, I came to appreciate how bulletproof the real games are. They are impeccably crafted, which means that you have all the tools at your disposal.

On a separate note, I think that games, more than anything else, take time. Your skills not only have to be high, but further you must be comfortable enough that you know you can get through all four. Know that the test has been designed this way. This sort of comfort really doesn't come from understanding explanations on 7Sage or realizing your mistakes per se, but rather through the realization that a section taken in its entirety can only throw so much at you.

An important realization that I came to was that, assuming high skills at LG, anyone can get all of the questions right if given unlimited time. The test, though, does not care whether you can get to the right answer in an unlimited amount of time. Instead, the LSAT generally, and LG specifically, is time-pressured. What this means for LG is that you cannot mull over different diagramming options, probe for endless inferences, or flesh out every single answer choice. Instead, you have to be something like a heat-seeking missile en route to the correct answer choice. For MBT/CNBT, actively search for the right answer at various stages. For CBT/NNT, actively eliminate the wrong answer choices. Pick a way to diagram and run with it. Attach the rules to your very cerebral cortex and use them as a hammer against the questions. A diagram is a helpful tool, but ultimately the only thing you need is a solid understanding of the rules. I have been able to ace a medium/difficult game with time running out not by using a diagram but rather just using the rules themselves.

FWIW, this is from the kind of LGer who couldn't figure out a single game during my initial diagnostic, but PTed at -0/-1 before the December test and most likely went -0 on the real thing today.

I've taken and mastered the manhattan games a couple times Lel and get owned on LG. got destroyed today. after so many hours of practice. I love life.

If you've been able to master the Manhattan games then you are very skilled at logic games.

What is it that did you in?

[banjo]

I think I got -6 on the games and still ended up with a 176. You don't have to be perfect at games to get a decent LSAT score. If you're in the minority of people that finds the RC/LR sections easier to master, work on those. A point is a point.

[Angstrom]

I was in your shoes for the September exam, OP. I had an experimental LG section right before the break and I was able to answer 20 correctly and guessed on 3, but then I had the real LG section right after the break and I bombed. I think several things factored into it:

1. The LG games are very exhausting compared to the other sections, IMO (since you're working constantly on them without much time to pause), and taking them back-to-back (even with the 15 minute break) I think my brain just quit midway through the real LG. It's very draining.
2. I think there was something psychological about thinking I rocked the LG section, then finding out after the break that I had to take it again. It was a huge letdown.

That being said, I still managed a 161 even with bombing the LG section. I did VERY well on the reading section, better than usual. So if you think you did well on the other sections, don't cancel your score.

I retook today (I guess yesterday now) and had my LG section first. I was able to answer 18 correctly and had to guess on 5 (due to time), so I did much better this time. I'm pretty sure I didn't do as well on the reading section this time, so maybe it will be a push. We'll see.

I actually found the first game the trickiest, so I moved on to the other three games and then returned to the first game last. For the rug game, in as general way as I possibly can, I'll just say that one of the keys was to think about the possible distributions. But in any case, I think if you're struggling with one of the games, recognize that early and move on to the other games. I think it's easier to attack the toughest game when you know you don't have three other games to worry about.

[foundingfather]

i psyched myself out the first take too. LG was my first section and it ruined my vibe for the rest of the test

just try to relax and be confident in yourself

seriously, it's just a test. you're not going to die if you can't answer a question - don't let your test taking anxiety (even if it's only slight) get the best of you. if you practiced enough, you will do fine.

[hopeboaltberkeley]

I feel you op. Poured a massive amount of effort into LG's. Read several prep books, drilled hundreds of games, and then panicked on today's LG and skipped a ton. I did better on a second LG section but I suspect it was the experimental.

[KMart]

The fact that you're getting perfect scores untimed shows you have the foundational knowledge needed to master the games. For me it was all about repetition and eventually the timing started clicking for me. It's weird how it works. There will always be a game or two that throw people off, but it's all about getting that internal timing down for the test. You've done most the hard part already.

[appind]

op, lg can be improved a lot but it can still be a bit unpredictable for anyone. i was in your shoes last year when after doing generally well on lg during pts, i bombed the lg section on the test by misreading a rule and not being able to do most of the questions on 2 full games on the section. In my retake I went -1 on the lg with a few minutes to spare. It can still be a dangerous section though as can be seen from the recent tests.

[hill1334]

The fact that you're getting perfect scores untimed shows you have the foundational knowledge needed to master the games. For me it was all about repetition and eventually the timing started clicking for me. It's weird how it works. There will always be a game or two that throw people off, but it's all about getting that internal timing down for the test. You've done most the hard part already.

The idea keeps getting repeated that if someone can get a -0 or -1 untimed they have the fundamentals down, but it is just not necessarily true, and I think it is misleading for everyone to continue to act as though it is. It is completely possible for someone to brute force their way through almost every single game (if not every single game). Sure, I suppose if you are able to brute force your way through every single question successfully, it is an indication that you have the most basic rules down. However, repeatedly resorting to brute force methods also indicates you are failing to make any real inferences and/or use worlds/templates. If you are not making basic inferences and using templates when appropriate, it does not matter how much faster you get at brute forcing, you are never going to finish in the allotted time.

Basically, my point is that just because someone can get a -1 in an hour does not mean they necessarily have the fundamentals down and their only problem is timing. As in most situations, the reality is often more nuanced, and they may not be making the inferences they need to make in order to consistently finish within 35 mins.

[flash21]

Hills - I think you may be on to something.. I find even when I blind review my games sections and do well, it does take a lot of time still. I'm not sure if I just need to spend more time making inferences? But I dont know what to say for the rugs game though, I couldn't even SET IT UP! I think I ripped through games 1-2, got some questions on the 4th but the 3rd was basically blind guessing. How do I fix a problem of not being able to set a diagram up?

[mist4bison]

.

[flash21]

I am not taking an hour on the untimed review sections. Probably an extra 10ish minutes if the games are pretty difficult. I'll go through the trainer again once I've got my exams out of the way.

[hill1334]

The fact that you're getting perfect scores untimed shows you have the foundational knowledge needed to master the games. For me it was all about repetition and eventually the timing started clicking for me. It's weird how it works. There will always be a game or two that throw people off, but it's all about getting that internal timing down for the test. You've done most the hard part already.

The idea keeps getting repeated that if someone can get a -0 or -1 untimed they have the fundamentals down, but it is just not necessarily true, and I think it is misleading for everyone to continue to act as though it is. It is completely possible for someone to brute force their way through almost every single game (if not every single game). Sure, I suppose if you are able to brute force your way through every single question successfully, it is an indication that you have the most basic rules down. However, repeatedly resorting to brute force methods also indicates you are failing to make any real inferences and/or use worlds/templates. If you are not making basic inferences and using templates when appropriate, it does not matter how much faster you get at brute forcing, you are never going to finish in the allotted time.

Basically, my point is that just because someone can get a -1 in an hour does not mean they necessarily have the fundamentals down and their only problem is timing. As in most situations, the reality is often more nuanced, and they may not be making the inferences they need to make in order to consistently finish within 35 mins.

Even if you brute force your way through and go -0, you have the fundamentals down. don't know why you would think brute forcing means that you don't. Fundamentals are, as someone above put it, foundational knowledge. The ability to make inferences, diagram, answer questions with brute force. Anything past that--seeing the correct answer without brute force--comes with time. That's not to say that reinforcing those fundamentals wouldn't be helpful. I also suppose I was assuming that OP doesn't take an entire freaking hour on these questions. If you do OP, go back to a book.

I am sorry but that is just not necessarily true. The first time I ever did a logic game section, I got an untimed -1 by brute forcing my way through every problem. However, I did not have the fundamentals down and frankly had no idea what was I was doing. Subsequently, I likely only got around 12 or 14 correct on my first ever timed logic game section.

OP may very well have the fundamentals down and just need to practice more under timed conditions, but it may also be the case that OP is not diagramming in the most effective and efficient way possible, failing to use templates, or not making basic inferences (all, in my opinion, "fundamental skills" within the context of logic games, which are not really required when brute forcing your way to answers). While practicing under timed conditions may help someone learn to refine these particular skill sets, it may be more beneficial for OP, or other people reading this thread who want to improve their performance on logic games, to go back to the books prior to continuing their practice under timed conditions.

Ultimately, I think it is a little dangerous to tell people that if they are scoring -1 untimed, they just need to practice under timed conditions without including some additional caveats. It may be good advice for some people, but you may be sending other people down a road which will not provide them with the maximum benefit.

[DivineJustice]

Honestly I would say just buy the PS LGB (if you haven't) and just drill a bunch of games. That's what I did and I was scoring -0 and -1 on LG in prep. And just for reference, my diagnostic on LG was probably -14 or -15 Yesterdays test was a hard LG (had to guess on one question), so now I question my own abilities haha. I think what boned me the most was that I forgot to set my watch on LG so I had no realistic idea how much time I had. Regardless, I had like 4 questions left when 5 minutes was called -- unfortunately they weren't the easiest to answer.

[flash21]

Partially what is so frustrating is I drilled the shit out of games. Read blueprint and powerscores games books. praying to jesus I dont have to re-take. If I do, I guess I'll just read back over the blueprint LG book.