Pithypike's Complete LSAT Study Guide Forum

[ajl17]

Thanks for your plan, even though it was years ago. I wish I saw this before I sat for my first test last December. I will need to study between now and the June 2013 exam so thank you!

I will be using the 3 PS bibles, PTs from the beginning and the Kaplan Mastery (which I was able to get a 2011 version of on Ebay).

[Varys]

Since this information was given awhile back, is it still advisable to do use the Kaplan Mastery book? I don't see many recent good reviews of Kaplan. I do see a lot about Powerscore, Manhattan, and Blueprint.

[A.Taarabt7]

anyone do worse when they redo their LG the following week or following days? I just did redid all the pure sequencing games that I have drilled ( about 6-7 total)

Actually did worse when I redid them. Don't really like this timing aspect on 2nd try, I blame it personally because most of the Q I got wrong were from not following up as thoroughly as I did the first time I attempted the games. The 2nd time around I got the games done really quickly but missed more. Next time I redo the games im not timing myself. I don't feel that it helps me at this stage of my prep since I am in the accuracy phase

I feel that since this is a retake for me, and I have previously already worked on speed

I shouldn't really time myself 2nd and 3rd time redoing LG or LR because this speed factor at this time of my prep just caused me to miss more questions ( of which most I got right 1st time around) than I should have.

[Dr. Dre]

Since this information was given awhile back, is it still advisable to do use the Kaplan Mastery book? I don't see many recent good reviews of Kaplan. I do see a lot about Powerscore, Manhattan, and Blueprint.

[Vaulter]

spam

[lsatprepd00d]

Since you got a 167 your avatar should say that instead of 180.

[Pneumonia]

I posted this on another thread but if anyone is having trouble with Logic Games, I offer one on one tutoring/coaching over phone/Skype exclusively for the Logic Games section. For more information:

the people following this guide (and on this forum generally) aren't trying to go -4 LG on test day. For less than the cost of 1 hour of "Skype tutoring" from you people can buy the entire Cambridge Games by type set, make copies, and use Pithy's method for free.

[Pneumonia]

Since this information was given awhile back, is it still advisable to do use the Kaplan Mastery book? I don't see many recent good reviews of Kaplan. I do see a lot about Powerscore, Manhattan, and Blueprint.

Powerscore has always been better than Kaplan for method/strategy; the same goes for Manhattan and Blueprint now. The reason Mastery is included in the original guide is that it includes LR questions by type. In my opinion Mastery is no longer advisable because you can do LR by type from Cambridge.

*Edit- here's a review form Steve:
http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/ka ... -book.html
It seems clear to me that Cambridge is superior to both of these options. Explanations at the back of the book are convenient, but you never need all of them and the Manhattan forums are usually better anyway.

[goCats3]

Long time reader, first time poster here.

I'm studying for the June test and had a question about repeating LG sets. I'm following this guide to an extent and am working my way through the LG. Was curious to see how much time people left between doing the same LG. How do you know you're doing it correctly instead of just remembering, especially since a question missed the first time sticks out more and is more likely to be remembered.

Which leads to my second question. For those of you who have done games multiple times, do you think getting better at them is due to becoming more familiar with the game specifically, or the actually techniques? Or does it just give you an inflated confidence booster? I just don't want to be doing really well on drills and then come test day I'm shocked to see a lower score because the games are obviously ones I haven't done 2-3 times.

Hopefully that makes sense.

Thanks all!

[Pneumonia]

@goCats3

I used this method and did not find the repetition to be detrimental. If you do LG from some variation of 1-40 that's at least 120 games you're going to be seeing. Pithy's guide isn't super specific about how to go through them 3 or 4 times each, though there has been some clarification in this thread. I went through them three times: once by type, untimed; once by type timed; and once mixed timed. I found this method to be really helpful. You'd think that you'd remember solutions/inferences for specific games but I didn't. Even if you do it's still good practice to go through them again; it builds muscle memory.

Doing it as I did you will have 120+ games between each repeated game, which decreases the likelihood of remembering a significant detail pretty substantially. I think getting better at the games using this method is 90% skill 10% previous exposure. This has been reflected in my PT scores: -0 LG on all PT's since finishing the second round of this method. Did the third round just for kicks mostly. Still have the fourth set of copies lying around that I intend to peruse leading up until test day to stay fresh.

[goCats3]

This has been reflected in my PT scores: -0 LG on all PTs since finishing the second round of this method.

Thanks for the reply. I assume your -0 score on PTs consisted of completely new LG sections that you didn't use for drills, correct?

Also, I only got 7-42 classified by game type, do you know where I can find 1-6 classified as well? Thanks.

[Pneumonia]

This has been reflected in my PT scores: -0 LG on all PTs since finishing the second round of this method.

Thanks for the reply. I assume your -0 score on PTs consisted of completely new LG sections that you didn't use for drills, correct?

Also, I only got 7-42 classified by game type, do you know where I can find 1-6 classified as well? Thanks.

Yes, they were new games that I had not seen before. You don't necessarily need 1-6; 7-42 is a pretty good sample. However, if you are ok with spending the money this is the best way I know of getting them:
http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/ls ... nload.html

[goCats3]

This has been reflected in my PT scores: -0 LG on all PTs since finishing the second round of this method.

Thanks for the reply. I assume your -0 score on PTs consisted of completely new LG sections that you didn't use for drills, correct?

Also, I only got 7-42 classified by game type, do you know where I can find 1-6 classified as well? Thanks.

Yes, they were new games that I had not seen before. You don't necessarily need 1-6; 7-42 is a pretty good sample. However, if you are ok with spending the money this is the best way I know of getting them:
http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/ls ... nload.html

Actually I meant the actual classifications for 1-6 LGs, as in which games are which type. I already have the PTs. But I guess you're right, I don't really need them. Did you see a big difference from when you first start doing the drills/first run through, and the second time? I'm really struggling with time (between 9-12 min) and getting them right (a few 0's, a lot of -1's, a few -2's).

[Pneumonia]

Actually I meant the actual classifications for 1-6 LGs, as in which games are which type. I already have the PTs. But I guess you're right, I don't really need them. Did you see a big difference from when you first start doing the drills/first run through, and the second time? I'm really struggling with time (between 9-12 min) and getting them right (a few 0's, a lot of -1's, a few -2's).

I don't have the LGB handy but I believe even 1-6 are classified in the back, though perhaps not. As for your first pass I wouldn't move on from a game until you're 99% certain you've gotten it right, even if that means erasing and starting over. If you keep time during the first round then I'd just use your phone face down or something else that you can't see or hear. If you're consistently 14 minutes or more on a certain type then I'd say pause and review the LGB or consult other guides, like Manhattan. I saw HUGE improvements the second round: wrong answers went down by 75% and average time went down by several minutes.

Don't worry about time the first round, just focus on understanding. Once you get all the way through stuff like Basic Linear will seem much much easier.

[goCats3]

I don't have the LGB handy but I believe even 1-6 are classified in the back, though perhaps not. As for your first pass I wouldn't move on from a game until you're 99% certain you've gotten it right, even if that means erasing and starting over. If you keep time during the first round then I'd just use your phone face down or something else that you can't see or hear. If you're consistently 14 minutes or more on a certain type then I'd say pause and review the LGB or consult other guides, like Manhattan. I saw HUGE improvements the second round: wrong answers went down by 75% and average time went down by several minutes.

Don't worry about time the first round, just focus on understanding. Once you get all the way through stuff like Basic Linear will seem much much easier.

I just keep a stopwatch going to see what time I end up finishing at, I don't actually look at it. I'm done when I've reached the last question, so I haven't allowed myself to go back and make sure everything is right, as you've suggested. I'll try giving that a shot.

Also, when you do these sets for the first time, even if you get -0, do you go and check explanations to see how it's set up and how all the questions were/should be approached. Or do you only review the ones you got wrong or were unsure of?

Thanks for the advice so far.

[Pneumonia]

I actually use the explanations as my answer key, but I mostly just scan them to see if I'm right and make sure I diagrammed in an efficient way. If I go -0 but took long enough that I think I missed an inference I'll check the explanation as well. I have the Kaplan explanations and they are pretty helpful. I just scan through them for the correct answer, stopping if something jumps out at me or if I missed a question or think I could have done better. I'm sure this strategy could be utilized with the Manhattan boards as well.

[SwindlersList]

hey pneumonia,

how long did the entire process take you in regards to LG? I like the idea of how you went about it and feel that that I'm going to take the same approach.

[Pneumonia]

hey pneumonia,

how long did the entire process take you in regards to LG? I like the idea of how you went about it and feel that that I'm going to take the same approach.

It took about 8 weeks give or take. I combined some game types that were similar and only had a few games each (like unbalanced:overloaded/underfunded for a specific type). After this combination I had ten "sets" of games that I put into manila folders. On the inside of each folder I stapled a progress chart that let me keep track of time and questions missed for each individual game per round. This was beneficial for two reasons: 1) I could see my times going down in the second/third rounds and 2) if I missed a specific question more than once I could deconstruct it and see if I was making any fundamental errors.

In regard to your question this also enabled me to look and see how much time I spent using this method. It was almost exactly 50 hours spread over the 8 weeks, but that figure only includes the actual time spent working the games. I also spent quite a bit of time sorting, reviewing, and browsing the Kaplan explanations and Manhattan forums. I'd put it at around 120 hours total. I do LSAT prep 5 days a week, Sunday-Thursday, so during the time I was doing games I'd try to do 1 folder each day (answering and review). Some folders were bigger than others (like Advanced Linear Balanced) so I'd split them over multiple days.

For those keeping track this is about 3 hours a day, 5 days a week, for two months; this figure seems to accord pretty well with how much time per day I felt like I spent on them. BTW I'm not a whiz at LG or anything- I was 7 for 23 on my diagnostic. I haven't missed an LG point on a PT since finishing the second round of this.

[MKX]

Are Cambridge and LSATblog the best to get drill packets/books from?

[TheMostDangerousLG]

Are Cambridge and LSATblog the best to get drill packets/books from?

Random person's two cents: I like the Cambridge packets the best.

[MKX]

Are Cambridge and LSATblog the best to get drill packets/books from?

Random person's two cents: I like the Cambridge packets the best.

Much appreciated

[ellewoods23]

I am starting preparation for the October LSAT. Any recommendations on a daily schedule with specifics on what to study? I already started the Logic Games Bible by Powerscore. I work full time but would be able to dedicate 2-3 hours of my day studying.

[Toby Ziegler]

Tag

[yetanotherSS]

First post since getting the June results and it has to be in this thread (before I inevitably make my way to what are my chances). I followed the Pithypike guide tweaked over a 4 months schedule, from February to June. I used Manhattan LSAT for LR/LG and self-review for RC, and bought the Cambridge LSAT package to go over PTs 1-38 divided in game and question types, and PTs 50-68 in practice tests. I kept track of my time using Excel, and must have spent roughly 2h30 to 3h30 per day in the first 2 1/2 months, with a break day per week, and 2h to 2h30 per day on average in the last month and a half.
I went from 163 cold diagnosis to consistently scoring 175-180 in the last month and ended up with 178 on the actual test. This method really works great.

A couple of things I worried about that turned out fine:
- The correspondence between Powerscore LG and Manhattan LG. It may seem like a big deal at first and I was really worried to stray off the recommended plan, but like people said, after a month or so it all falls into place and you start realizing that game categories don't matter as much once you've got the basics of each down.
- The correspondence between the Cambridge LSAT question types and Manhattan LSAT types also bugged me at first, but the Manhattan LSAT guides are well-written enough that it's super easy to figure out which is which.

The only regret I have having followed this method is not having put enough emphasis on RC. I did one section every 3 days as recommended for 2 1/2 months, and then full sections as part of the PTs, reviewing them afterwards by trying to decompose the structure of the paragraphs and arguments. I did improve, but not nearly as much as with LG and LR. On the final test I did -0 on LR and LG, and -3 on RC

I'm really grateful to Pithypike and everyone else who posted on this thread. Good luck to everyone else taking the exam, if you're using this method you pretty much can't go wrong.

[lavender01]

Maybe someone has already asked this question, but what do the numbers next to the LG types mean? Is that a specific LG from a PT?