Top Law Schools

I am just beginning to study and have heard from some that the LGB over classifies the games (eg there is not a big difference between the different type of basic linear games). I am not sure if it is solid advice to categorize broader so I just wanted to get some advice from people who have already taken the test.

Also, if the best way to study is to exactly follow the LGB, does anyone have a list of the games categorized by all the types in the LGB (instead of by date)?


Thanks!

yup. and i also only liked their basic linear games strategy, nothing else.

I think grouping games are well classified. What kinda strategy do you use for those james?

poo wrote:I am just beginning to study and have heard from some that the LGB over classifies the games (eg there is not a big difference between the different type of basic linear games). I am not sure if it is solid advice to categorize broader so I just wanted to get some advice from people who have already taken the test.

Also, if the best way to study is to exactly follow the LGB, does anyone have a list of the games categorized by all the types in the LGB (instead of by date)?


Thanks!

This is not the best way to study. The LGB is an excellent guide when starting out logic games, but you'll need to adapt it to your own method as well. Last couple of tests have had a game that read like it was meant to intentionally mess up people who adhere strictly to the LGB. Once you're completely comfortable with games, you won't need to 'classify' a game before you start, you'll just know what to do.

Yes.

I would agree with you. Over-classifying probably makes it easier to organize the info and sell books. It also makes their books substantially longer than their rivals (at least TPR and Kaplan) and gives you the impresison that the material is exhaustive.

I'm going through it now, I agree though, I thought the "linear/grouping" combo was nothing more than an overloaded advanced linear game.

We're in the midst of categorizing games in a more intuitive way. We'd love to hear suggestions from you guys regarding how you'd like them classified. Thanks.

If you think LGB overclassifies, take a look at lsatblog.blogspot.com (http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/ls ... -list.html). This system actually seems a little better than PS.

I don't think LGB overclassifies but I don't like the system very well. The major categories of "linear" and "grouping" are pretty good but beyond that it doesn't do much for me.

People do get obsessed with certain classification schemes. Not per se the games, but people have insisted that a particular credited answer is wrong because the question falls within a specific rubric, and as such the answer makes no sense.

lawduder wrote:

poo wrote:I am just beginning to study and have heard from some that the LGB over classifies the games (eg there is not a big difference between the different type of basic linear games). I am not sure if it is solid advice to categorize broader so I just wanted to get some advice from people who have already taken the test.

Also, if the best way to study is to exactly follow the LGB, does anyone have a list of the games categorized by all the types in the LGB (instead of by date)?


Thanks!

This is not the best way to study. The LGB is an excellent guide when starting out logic games, but you'll need to adapt it to your own method as well. Last couple of tests have had a game that read like it was meant to intentionally mess up people who adhere strictly to the LGB. Once you're completely comfortable with games, you won't need to 'classify' a game before you start, you'll just know what to do.

titcr.

The LGB doesn't classify enough.

JazzOne wrote:The LGB doesn't classify enough.

lol what do you think it should classify more?!

i think so. there are wayyy too many grouping classifications...do not get those at all. They make me even more confused than not classifying grouping games at all! i like the classification here: http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/lo ... types.html