Appropriate way to study LG? Forum

[Mint-Berry_Crunch]

Post removed...

[MrBalloons]

My issue with LG is always setup. If I can take the words and turn them into a reasonable setup I can pretty much always figure out the games. Double layer sequencing games in particular usually throw me off.

It reminds me of when I took UG physics. I always had issues conceptualizing problems. I guess this just gets fixed by drilling, though.

[1sataker]

I'm not sure when I really "clicked". I read the LG Bible and maybe around the end of that?

woa...after reading the LG book? that's fast

I was also drilling along the way.

Oh makes sense

Oh another tip I thought of.

For hypotheticals (question starts with "if") that are must be trues. It's very, very common that TCR will be the first or second deduction you make after putting the variable in its new slot. You don't have to do conditionals completely. So if you get something like "if X is 3rd then with of the following must be true" throw it in slot 3 then see what rule it impacts next.

Can I ask what TCR is?
What about those questions without conditional statement? Especially for "cannot be true" questions...I'm weak at those too
I often use previous questions to eliminate some and then try to do trial&error, but without "if" statement means I missed some inference at beginning I guess?

Thanks for the advice! So it's true for any section to know when to skip a question and know when to use elmination...

YES! This is probably the MOST IMPORTANT thing to keep in mind with the LSAT. One question is worth a point at most, no matter how difficult it is.

Thanks for the advice! So it's true for any section to know when to skip a question and know when to use elmination...

YES! This is probably the MOST IMPORTANT thing to keep in mind with the LSAT. One question is worth a point at most, no matter how difficult it is.

Knowing how to eliminate is super helpful. When I run into a question that I'm clueless about I just start knocking off wrong answers.

Thanks for those advice
If we can eliminal all 4 that's good, but sometimes we have to use trial&error when we cannot elminate all, right?
Just curious, how often do you do trial&error per game?

[1sataker]

My issue with LG is always setup. If I can take the words and turn them into a reasonable setup I can pretty much always figure out the games. Double layer sequencing games in particular usually throw me off.

It reminds me of when I took UG physics. I always had issues conceptualizing problems. I guess this just gets fixed by drilling, though.

I have a similar problem...
Sometimes I'm not sure what to put as basement
Hopefully doing more games help me to see how to set up better.

[Mint-Berry_Crunch]

Post removed...

[1sataker]

I'm not sure when I really "clicked". I read the LG Bible and maybe around the end of that?

woa...after reading the LG book? that's fast

I was also drilling along the way.

Oh makes sense

Oh another tip I thought of.

For hypotheticals (question starts with "if") that are must be trues. It's very, very common that TCR will be the first or second deduction you make after putting the variable in its new slot. You don't have to do conditionals completely. So if you get something like "if X is 3rd then with of the following must be true" throw it in slot 3 then see what rule it impacts next.

Can I ask what TCR is?
What about those questions without conditional statement? Especially for "cannot be true" questions...I'm not good at those too
I often use previous questions to eliminate some and then try to do trial&error, but without "if" statement means I missed some inference at beginning I guess?

Thanks for the advice! So it's true for any section to know when to skip a question and know when to use elmination...

YES! This is probably the MOST IMPORTANT thing to keep in mind with the LSAT. One question is worth a point at most, no matter how difficult it is.

Thanks for the advice! So it's true for any section to know when to skip a question and know when to use elmination...

YES! This is probably the MOST IMPORTANT thing to keep in mind with the LSAT. One question is worth a point at most, no matter how difficult it is.

Knowing how to eliminate is super helpful. When I run into a question that I'm clueless about I just start knocking off wrong answers.

Thanks for those advice
If we can eliminal all 4 that's good, but sometimes we have to use trial&error when we cannot elminate all, right?
Just curious, how often do you do trial&error per game?

TCR=the credited/correct response.
cannot be true= Must be false. Look for something that explicitly breaks a rule.
Eg if you have a rule like "X -> Y" you want something that says X -> not Y. We know that must be false because we have a rail that says otherwise.
For those questions, you want something where you can't make a complete scenario, because rules are violated. New track of what's possible.
Honestly I'm drawing something for more questions than I'm not. Once you get bused to things you can draw new scenarios in a couple seconds, so it just makes sense to.

Thanks so much for the advice, I'll practice more games based on these advice
Conditional statement or rules seems always important!

[pittsburghpirates]

Post removed.

[Mint-Berry_Crunch]

Post removed...

[lymenheimer]

Logic Games were my strong suit, so maybe my information might not be as helpful as others have already posted. I would suggest sitting down with a single game (maybe one of the ones on the free LSAT) and working through it for as long as it takes for you to get the right answers. Rather than watching a video about how it's done or learning how to diagram, discovering your personal methods will be beneficial to see what steps you need to take to improve. And if you have already done that, then ignore my advice/suggestions. If you have to, write out as many sequences/groups that you can come up with based on the rules, or go to each question/answer choice and write a sequence (or multiple) that will either cause an answer choice to be true, or until you find one to be false. Fortunately for me, I was able to quickly digest the info during the real test, so I was actually able to list out 3 or 4 sequences per question/answer choice when I got locked up. But I personally have found that finding my own method, then supplementing it with pieces of other people's suggestions has helped me the most.

[1sataker]

Thanks,
Sounds like it may help to quickly look at questions and if they have many conditional questions (starting "if") there aren't many inferences to make and should move on to questions soon



By the way, for those "Can't be true" questions without conditional statement, I often use precious work to eliminate some answer choices and do trial&error...is this an efficient way to answer this kind of question? Or I should combine rules to make inferences before see answer choices? (since there's no conditional statement, it means I missed some inference at beginning...)

The type of question that you are being asked should be a big factor in how you choose to find the right answer. For example, if you are asked what COULD be true, you can deduce that the 4 wrong answers all CANNOT be true. In an instance like that, for me it is usually way faster to focus on eliminating the wrong answers as opposed to trying to prove the correct answer using inferences. On the flip side of the coin, if you are asked what MUST be true, you know that the 4 wrong answers simply do not always have to be true (i.e. they could never be true, they could be true some of the time, etc.). In this instance, it is usually way faster to find the correct answer using inferences.

Remember, any question that provides you with a new condition will virtually always allow you to make additional inferences. Go into each question like that with that in mind, and you'll train your brain to seek out those inferences.

Also, any questions that are must be true or must be false that do not include new information (i.e. would simply be based on your original diagram) will always give you more insight into how the game works. If it turns out that you missed this inference the first time around, that's ok but the additional info from these types of questions will almost surely help you to answer future questions.

In general, I try to avoid using brute force at all if possible. Not saying that using it is a bad thing, but it definitely is more time consuming. Decreasing the amount of time I spent brute forcing (and instead focusing on making inferences) did wonders for me in terms of improving my LG scores.

Another huge thing that I helped make LG click for me was learning how to effectively reuse work that I had previously done. For example, in many ordering games the first question will ask you for a possible solution and you can find that answer by applying the rules and eliminating answer choices. Say for example you confidently answer this type of question and the answer choice has item B in the first position. In a later question, you may get asked a question such as "Which of the following CANNOT occupy the first position?" If item B is one of the answer choices there, you can quickly and confidently eliminate that answer choice as your answer to the first question has proved that B can go first. Just one example, but there are tons of ways that past work can help you to answer later questions in a game. Try never to do more work than is absolutely necessary to get TCR!

A lot of great advice...thanks!
Um, can I double check...so making inferences usually mean combining rules&see what can/can't go where, right?
Are there patterns (combine this type of rule such as conditional rules to that type of rule)? You don't try to combine every rules right.

My issue with LG is always setup. If I can take the words and turn them into a reasonable setup I can pretty much always figure out the games. Double layer sequencing games in particular usually throw me off.

It reminds me of when I took UG physics. I always had issues conceptualizing problems. I guess this just gets fixed by drilling, though.

I have a similar problem...
Sometimes I'm not sure what to put as basement
Hopefully doing more games help me to see how to set up better.

If I'm ordering something, it's horizontal, numbered slats.
If im grouping something (arranging things by commonalities), it's vertical.

For double layer, used both layers. You can get a lot of great deductions because one tier will move less than the other, which tells you what can and cannot go somewhere.

Sorry, but what do you mean "used both layers"? And what do you mean "one tier will move less"? I think most of time it is double layer game when I'm not sure what to use as a basement, so... thanks in advance!

Logic Games were my strong suit, so maybe my information might not be as helpful as others have already posted. I would suggest sitting down with a single game (maybe one of the ones on the free LSAT) and working through it for as long as it takes for you to get the right answers. Rather than watching a video about how it's done or learning how to diagram, discovering your personal methods will be beneficial to see what steps you need to take to improve. And if you have already done that, then ignore my advice/suggestions. If you have to, write out as many sequences/groups that you can come up with based on the rules, or go to each question/answer choice and write a sequence (or multiple) that will either cause an answer choice to be true, or until you find one to be false. Fortunately for me, I was able to quickly digest the info during the real test, so I was actually able to list out 3 or 4 sequences per question/answer choice when I got locked up. But I personally have found that finding my own method, then supplementing it with pieces of other people's suggestions has helped me the most.

Right...if I can create my own method, that would be great because I don't have to check videos each time after I do new games
I just wonder what if I miss one or two questions and my diagram is very different from the one made in videos...did this kind of thing happen to you and what do you do in this case?

[Mint-Berry_Crunch]

Post removed...

[1sataker]

So what I meant for double layers applies for tiered ordering games, where you have a normal ordering game arranged by categories.
So like, children born between the years 1990-1996, and say 3 lefty 2 righty.
Then you'll get rules like:
No children of the same handedness were born in consecutive years.
uma, who is right handed, was born in 1993.
Sarah, who is right handed, was born before uma.

So there's two tiers, the top being handed ness, the bottom being order born. You can use the handedness to figure out where people were born. (No rightys were born in 1992 or 1994)

Ah, I see...thank you!

[pittsburghpirates]

Post removed.

[1sataker]

A lot of great advice...thanks!
Um, can I double check...so making inferences usually mean combining rules&see what can/can't go where, right?
Are there patterns (combine this type of rule such as conditional rules to that type of rule)? You don't try to combine every rules right.

The general rule I use is if two rules have a common element between them, look to combine them (i.e. A -> B and B->C yields the A->C inference). This will work for almost any type of rule, whether it's conditional, block, ordering, etc. Rules without common elements are difficult to combine unless one rule restricts the possible game boards significantly (imagine a very large block in an ordering game or large grouping in a grouping game).

Thanks I guess I should relax a little more then...
JY sometimes makes inferences that I did not think of (and that makes me anxious) but maybe I should start step by step.

[BlueprintJason]

Thanks for the advice! So it's true for any section to know when to skip a question and know when to use elmination...

YES! This is probably the MOST IMPORTANT thing to keep in mind with the LSAT. One question is worth a point at most, no matter how difficult it is.

Lot's of good stuff in this thread from scanning through. But this one really caught my eye, it is so important, and I just wanted to give an anecdote to emphasize the point.

With LG, you really want to overtrain so that any weirdness on test day will not shake you (and there will be at least one odd thing, if not more). Additionally, if you look at a question, run through the answers, and it's still not clicking, then just cut it and keep moving. One point is not worth any more time. But more importantly, if you train so that you are finishing sections with extra time at the end, you'll be ready for curveballs and you'll be able to circle back to something you skipped and give it another shot fresh. You'll be shocked, but usually when you look at something a second time like this, you'll get smacked in the face with the right answer.

So the anecdote:

I took the June 2014 LSAT, which had a very unusual 4th game. I was lucky that I had practiced this game type in the middle of my prep, but it still was less familiar than other types I had seen more. However, at the end of game 3, I believe, there was a rule substitution question that threw me off. I think I misread the correct answer and the eliminated it, but all 5 ended up seeming wrong to me. Note that I hadn't seen the wet and wild 4th game yet, and didn't know what was coming. But, since I had practiced cutting questions and circling back when I was stuck on just one nasty one, I just moved on and circled that question. Game 4 ended up taking me a long time, but I had built up extra time in the middle games so I had plenty. This allowed me to relax and just work through carefully making sure I wasn't messing anything up. Then coming back to the last question of game 3, it was blatantly obvious to me what the right answer was, and I had time to check over the last game again just for certainty.

The takeaway:

Practice the crap out of LG so that you are finishing with extra time consistently. It's like warming up with a weighted baseball bat before stepping up to the plate--the real thing won't feel so bad. Something odd could throw you off and you really need to be better than you "need" to be to go -0/-1, especially if they throw in something really nasty. Also, if they throw in something evil, or you just don't spot it after a read through or two, then circle it and come back. There is lower hanging fruit, and you don't have to get everything right to get a 180. This last bit holds true for all sections, BTW.

Good luck!

[1sataker]

Thanks for the advice! So it's true for any section to know when to skip a question and know when to use elmination...

YES! This is probably the MOST IMPORTANT thing to keep in mind with the LSAT. One question is worth a point at most, no matter how difficult it is.

Lot's of good stuff in this thread from scanning through. But this one really caught my eye, it is so important, and I just wanted to give an anecdote to emphasize the point.

With LG, you really want to overtrain so that any weirdness on test day will not shake you (and there will be at least one odd thing, if not more). Additionally, if you look at a question, run through the answers, and it's still not clicking, then just cut it and keep moving. One point is not worth any more time. But more importantly, if you train so that you are finishing sections with extra time at the end, you'll be ready for curveballs and you'll be able to circle back to something you skipped and give it another shot fresh. You'll be shocked, but usually when you look at something a second time like this, you'll get smacked in the face with the right answer.

So the anecdote:

I took the June 2014 LSAT, which had a very unusual 4th game. I was lucky that I had practiced this game type in the middle of my prep, but it still was less familiar than other types I had seen more. However, at the end of game 3, I believe, there was a rule substitution question that threw me off. I think I misread the correct answer and the eliminated it, but all 5 ended up seeming wrong to me. Note that I hadn't seen the wet and wild 4th game yet, and didn't know what was coming. But, since I had practiced cutting questions and circling back when I was stuck on just one nasty one, I just moved on and circled that question. Game 4 ended up taking me a long time, but I had built up extra time in the middle games so I had plenty. This allowed me to relax and just work through carefully making sure I wasn't messing anything up. Then coming back to the last question of game 3, it was blatantly obvious to me what the right answer was, and I had time to check over the last game again just for certainty.

The takeaway:

Practice the crap out of LG so that you are finishing with extra time consistently. It's like warming up with a weighted baseball bat before stepping up to the plate--the real thing won't feel so bad. Something odd could throw you off and you really need to be better than you "need" to be to go -0/-1, especially if they throw in something really nasty. Also, if they throw in something evil, or you just don't spot it after a read through or two, then circle it and come back. There is lower hanging fruit, and you don't have to get everything right to get a 180. This last bit holds true for all sections, BTW.

Good luck!

Thanks for the advice and your anecdote!
So it seems it's really important to finish easy games asap and spend more time on harder ones...can I ask how long you usually take to finish easy ones?

[BlueprintJason]

Thanks for the advice! So it's true for any section to know when to skip a question and know when to use elmination...

YES! This is probably the MOST IMPORTANT thing to keep in mind with the LSAT. One question is worth a point at most, no matter how difficult it is.

Lot's of good stuff in this thread from scanning through. But this one really caught my eye, it is so important, and I just wanted to give an anecdote to emphasize the point.

With LG, you really want to overtrain so that any weirdness on test day will not shake you (and there will be at least one odd thing, if not more). Additionally, if you look at a question, run through the answers, and it's still not clicking, then just cut it and keep moving. One point is not worth any more time. But more importantly, if you train so that you are finishing sections with extra time at the end, you'll be ready for curveballs and you'll be able to circle back to something you skipped and give it another shot fresh. You'll be shocked, but usually when you look at something a second time like this, you'll get smacked in the face with the right answer.

So the anecdote:

I took the June 2014 LSAT, which had a very unusual 4th game. I was lucky that I had practiced this game type in the middle of my prep, but it still was less familiar than other types I had seen more. However, at the end of game 3, I believe, there was a rule substitution question that threw me off. I think I misread the correct answer and the eliminated it, but all 5 ended up seeming wrong to me. Note that I hadn't seen the wet and wild 4th game yet, and didn't know what was coming. But, since I had practiced cutting questions and circling back when I was stuck on just one nasty one, I just moved on and circled that question. Game 4 ended up taking me a long time, but I had built up extra time in the middle games so I had plenty. This allowed me to relax and just work through carefully making sure I wasn't messing anything up. Then coming back to the last question of game 3, it was blatantly obvious to me what the right answer was, and I had time to check over the last game again just for certainty.

The takeaway:

Practice the crap out of LG so that you are finishing with extra time consistently. It's like warming up with a weighted baseball bat before stepping up to the plate--the real thing won't feel so bad. Something odd could throw you off and you really need to be better than you "need" to be to go -0/-1, especially if they throw in something really nasty. Also, if they throw in something evil, or you just don't spot it after a read through or two, then circle it and come back. There is lower hanging fruit, and you don't have to get everything right to get a 180. This last bit holds true for all sections, BTW.

Good luck!

Thanks for the advice and your anecdote!
So it seems it's really important to finish easy games asap and spend more time on harder ones...can I ask how long you usually take to finish easy ones?

Yes, finishing the easy games ASAP is soooo important to mastering LG.

When I was prepping, the easiest games were in the 4 minute range. Average games around 7 minutes. The harder ones 10, but maybe 12 if it was a truly evil one (dinos took me 12+).

On my test day, the first game took about 7 (it wasn't bad, but the scenario was weird and I slowed down out of caution). The middle games took about 8 minutes total skipping the last question of game 3 (they were the easiest, bc there was a key deduction to each that blew the game open). The last game took way long, maybe even 15 minutes, but luckily that was still enough. Looking back, there was a better way to approach the final game then the one I initially pursued. I didn't find the key deduction immediately and ended up having to write a bunch of stuff out that I shouldn't have.

That time breakdown was really unusual though. I normally only had one game that was in that really fast zone. The section was designed so that you had to make up the time for the last game in the middle.

Moral: crush the easy games. Getting blitz speed on these is just as important, if not more, than getting through the hardest ones.

[1sataker]

Thanks for the advice! So it's true for any section to know when to skip a question and know when to use elmination...

YES! This is probably the MOST IMPORTANT thing to keep in mind with the LSAT. One question is worth a point at most, no matter how difficult it is.

Lot's of good stuff in this thread from scanning through. But this one really caught my eye, it is so important, and I just wanted to give an anecdote to emphasize the point.

With LG, you really want to overtrain so that any weirdness on test day will not shake you (and there will be at least one odd thing, if not more). Additionally, if you look at a question, run through the answers, and it's still not clicking, then just cut it and keep moving. One point is not worth any more time. But more importantly, if you train so that you are finishing sections with extra time at the end, you'll be ready for curveballs and you'll be able to circle back to something you skipped and give it another shot fresh. You'll be shocked, but usually when you look at something a second time like this, you'll get smacked in the face with the right answer.

So the anecdote:

I took the June 2014 LSAT, which had a very unusual 4th game. I was lucky that I had practiced this game type in the middle of my prep, but it still was less familiar than other types I had seen more. However, at the end of game 3, I believe, there was a rule substitution question that threw me off. I think I misread the correct answer and the eliminated it, but all 5 ended up seeming wrong to me. Note that I hadn't seen the wet and wild 4th game yet, and didn't know what was coming. But, since I had practiced cutting questions and circling back when I was stuck on just one nasty one, I just moved on and circled that question. Game 4 ended up taking me a long time, but I had built up extra time in the middle games so I had plenty. This allowed me to relax and just work through carefully making sure I wasn't messing anything up. Then coming back to the last question of game 3, it was blatantly obvious to me what the right answer was, and I had time to check over the last game again just for certainty.

The takeaway:

Practice the crap out of LG so that you are finishing with extra time consistently. It's like warming up with a weighted baseball bat before stepping up to the plate--the real thing won't feel so bad. Something odd could throw you off and you really need to be better than you "need" to be to go -0/-1, especially if they throw in something really nasty. Also, if they throw in something evil, or you just don't spot it after a read through or two, then circle it and come back. There is lower hanging fruit, and you don't have to get everything right to get a 180. This last bit holds true for all sections, BTW.

Good luck!

Thanks for the advice and your anecdote!
So it seems it's really important to finish easy games asap and spend more time on harder ones...can I ask how long you usually take to finish easy ones?

Yes, finishing the easy games ASAP is soooo important to mastering LG.

When I was prepping, the easiest games were in the 4 minute range. Average games around 7 minutes. The harder ones 10, but maybe 12 if it was a truly evil one (dinos took me 12+).

On my test day, the first game took about 7 (it wasn't bad, but the scenario was weird and I slowed down out of caution). The middle games took about 8 minutes total skipping the last question of game 3 (they were the easiest, bc there was a key deduction to each that blew the game open). The last game took way long, maybe even 15 minutes, but luckily that was still enough. Looking back, there was a better way to approach the final game then the one I initially pursued. I didn't find the key deduction immediately and ended up having to write a bunch of stuff out that I shouldn't have.

That time breakdown was really unusual though. I normally only had one game that was in that really fast zone. The section was designed so that you had to make up the time for the last game in the middle.

Moral: crush the easy games. Getting blitz speed on these is just as important, if not more, than getting through the hardest ones.

Got it, thanks for the advice!

*****

And thank you again for everyone posted advice for me, really appreciate them! Hopefully it will "click" sometime when I do more PT/games...

[lymenheimer]

Right...if I can create my own method, that would be great because I don't have to check videos each time after I do new games
I just wonder what if I miss one or two questions and my diagram is very different from the one made in videos...did this kind of thing happen to you and what do you do in this case?

Well that's not exactly where I was going with it, but it can apply that way. The videos can be very helpful for laying out the rules and can help pinpoint flaws in your own reasoning (even if you just listen without looking at the diagram).

For instance, when I diagram, I draw a new one for each variation that I come up with, I don't do it in a celled chart like most people suggest. It's just easier for me to read. But, when I went through videos if I missed one and wasn't understanding why, the explanation of the rules and variable is what helped me out. But that was towards the end of my studying because prior to that I didn't realize all of my resources. Before videos, I would check my answers. If I got one wrong, I would go through each rule one by one to each answer and try and figure it out myself. Eventually, you will get to the point where you realize you either misread a rule, or applied it differently than it was supposed to be applied.

tl;dr - I developed a method I could be familiar with and read/understand. Comparing diagrams isn't difficult as long as you have basic structure and understanding of what you wrote...It is more the concepts and explanation that the videos can help you with (if your diagram is different).

[1sataker]

Right...if I can create my own method, that would be great because I don't have to check videos each time after I do new games
I just wonder what if I miss one or two questions and my diagram is very different from the one made in videos...did this kind of thing happen to you and what do you do in this case?

Well that's not exactly where I was going with it, but it can apply that way. The videos can be very helpful for laying out the rules and can help pinpoint flaws in your own reasoning (even if you just listen without looking at the diagram).

For instance, when I diagram, I draw a new one for each variation that I come up with, I don't do it in a celled chart like most people suggest. It's just easier for me to read. But, when I went through videos if I missed one and wasn't understanding why, the explanation of the rules and variable is what helped me out. But that was towards the end of my studying because prior to that I didn't realize all of my resources. Before videos, I would check my answers. If I got one wrong, I would go through each rule one by one to each answer and try and figure it out myself. Eventually, you will get to the point where you realize you either misread a rule, or applied it differently than it was supposed to be applied.

tl;dr - I developed a method I could be familiar with and read/understand. Comparing diagrams isn't difficult as long as you have basic structure and understanding of what you wrote...It is more the concepts and explanation that the videos can help you with (if your diagram is different).

Can I ask what celled chart is? I thought people suggest to draw small digrams for each question usually, but this is not what you do?

[lymenheimer]

Can I ask what celled chart is? I thought people suggest to draw small digrams for each question usually, but this is not what you do?

Basic sequencing for example. I do _ _ _ _ _ _ _. And I do it however many time I need. Many people condense these into a cell-like structure. ie. | | | | | | | and have columns with minimally defined rows. If you have watched any videos you should notice this structure. I find that my method is cleaner and easier for me to understand rather than having all of the different possibilities stacking on top of each other in a table-like structure.

[1sataker]

Can I ask what celled chart is? I thought people suggest to draw small digrams for each question usually, but this is not what you do?

Basic sequencing for example. I do _ _ _ _ _ _ _. And I do it however many time I need. Many people condense these into a cell-like structure. ie. | | | | | | | and have columns with minimally defined rows. If you have watched any videos you should notice this structure. I find that my method is cleaner and easier for me to understand rather than having all of the different possibilities stacking on top of each other in a table-like structure.

I see, thanks. Actually I did not see JY uses the structure (I have not watched all videos so maybe he does?)
Does it work for grouping game or in/out game too?

[cdotson2]

Logic Games were my strong suit, so maybe my information might not be as helpful as others have already posted. I would suggest sitting down with a single game (maybe one of the ones on the free LSAT) and working through it for as long as it takes for you to get the right answers. Rather than watching a video about how it's done or learning how to diagram, discovering your personal methods will be beneficial to see what steps you need to take to improve. And if you have already done that, then ignore my advice/suggestions. If you have to, write out as many sequences/groups that you can come up with based on the rules, or go to each question/answer choice and write a sequence (or multiple) that will either cause an answer choice to be true, or until you find one to be false. Fortunately for me, I was able to quickly digest the info during the real test, so I was actually able to list out 3 or 4 sequences per question/answer choice when I got locked up. But I personally have found that finding my own method, then supplementing it with pieces of other people's suggestions has helped me the most.

to reiterate this point but from someone whose weakness was LG you need to start by taking as much time as you need to get 100% then slowly set time goals for yourself until you can repeatedly do sections in under 35 mins. on the actual test I went -0

[1sataker]

Logic Games were my strong suit, so maybe my information might not be as helpful as others have already posted. I would suggest sitting down with a single game (maybe one of the ones on the free LSAT) and working through it for as long as it takes for you to get the right answers. Rather than watching a video about how it's done or learning how to diagram, discovering your personal methods will be beneficial to see what steps you need to take to improve. And if you have already done that, then ignore my advice/suggestions. If you have to, write out as many sequences/groups that you can come up with based on the rules, or go to each question/answer choice and write a sequence (or multiple) that will either cause an answer choice to be true, or until you find one to be false. Fortunately for me, I was able to quickly digest the info during the real test, so I was actually able to list out 3 or 4 sequences per question/answer choice when I got locked up. But I personally have found that finding my own method, then supplementing it with pieces of other people's suggestions has helped me the most.

to reiterate this point but from someone whose weakness was LG you need to start by taking as much time as you need to get 100% then slowly set time goals for yourself until you can repeatedly do sections in under 35 mins. on the actual test I went -0

Hi,
Did you do all games from PT1? Sounds like I will have to take time and focus on reviewing a lot, and I start to wonder whether I should repeat the games I did to capture the concepts more (Say, maybe just do games starting from PT29 or PT 25.)

[lymenheimer]

I see, thanks. Actually I did not see JY uses the structure (I have not watched all videos so maybe he does?)
Does it work for grouping game or in/out game too?

I think many people suggest it for the sequencing games, just to have a simplified/condensed chart. Grouping and In and out are a little different, but I have seen explanations using the table structure. For me, it is easier to use for in and out/grouping because it is as if I am actually putting these things in a group so I can visualize what I am looking at, but it can get jumbled without clearly defined rows separating each of your possibilities.