Top Law Schools

Now that June scores are out I can safely say that after round 2 of taking this test I really do suck at logic games! I do decently on the rest of the test but get about half wrong on LG. Now I've been a long time lurker here (honestly you guys rock!) so I've already read through the LG Bible (slowly - twice!), did a Princeton Course and I've done a ton of PT's and post PT dissection. I used to be great at math (ie. I aced calculus and physics back in highschool so I'm not math simple .. I hope... ) but haven't had to do any math in school/work for 6+ years and am pretty out of touch. I've used up a lot of the games out there already so at this stage I'm scared I'm out of material. The fact that I seem stuck on this section is driving me nuts because I do fine on the rest of the test. If I had 10-11 minutes/game I'd get them perfectly - It's just that when I rush to complete them I really mess them up. Any suggestions to help me figure out where I'm going wrong?

Stats for the June 2010 LSAT are 165 score, (-11 on games , -4 LR, -3 RC). My first LSAT was in Sept 09 - 161 (-10 LG). Registered for Dec but I'd only take it if my scores improve enough (ie. 169+) to make it worth a re-write. I have a 3.56 GPA without drops (am Canadian and aiming for Canadian law schools). I just figure if I can get this LSAT score down I can up my chances of getting in since most only look at the highest score - plus this is my 3rd and last shot! Any advice you guys could give me would be appreciated!

Cheers

i've been studying for about 3 1/2 months now and have just recently had a break through in games. what did it for me was doing at minimum ten games a day for a week or two. all of a sudden i could just see deductions from miles away. i know you said you've done a lot of games but if you haven't tried doing that many a day for several weeks, i think that's you're best shot.

also, spending half a minute making any quick deductions is helpful. linkages between two or more rules and finding heavily restricted spots seem to be frequently tested on the games I've been doing, and after a while they're not so hard to see during setup.

i hope that helps, even though it isn't really original advice. but you know, with a 165 and 3.5, you have a pretty good shot at most Canadian schools in my opinion. especially mcgill if your softs are decent, since they have that "holistic" approach to ls apps.

TheGambler wrote:Now that June scores are out I can safely say that after round 2 of taking this test I really do suck at logic games! I do decently on the rest of the test but get about half wrong on LG. Now I've been a long time lurker here (honestly you guys rock!) so I've already read through the LG Bible (slowly - twice!), did a Princeton Course and I've done a ton of PT's and post PT dissection. I used to be great at math (ie. I aced calculus and physics back in highschool so I'm not math simple .. I hope... ) but haven't had to do any math in school/work for 6+ years and am pretty out of touch. I've used up a lot of the games out there already so at this stage I'm scared I'm out of material. The fact that I seem stuck on this section is driving me nuts because I do fine on the rest of the test. If I had 10-11 minutes/game I'd get them perfectly - It's just that when I rush to complete them I really mess them up. Any suggestions to help me figure out where I'm going wrong?

Stats for the June 2010 LSAT are 165 score, (-11 on games , -4 LR, -3 RC). My first LSAT was in Sept 09 - 161 (-10 LG). Registered for Dec but I'd only take it if my scores improve enough (ie. 169+) to make it worth a re-write. I have a 3.56 GPA without drops (am Canadian and aiming for Canadian law schools). I just figure if I can get this LSAT score down I can up my chances of getting in since most only look at the highest score - plus this is my 3rd and last shot! Any advice you guys could give me would be appreciated!

Cheers

Nothing substantive to say - BUT LG is the best section to have problems with because it's arguably the easiest section to master, with some TLS help I know you'll rock it. I predict 170+. Good luck buddy, you're in a good spot.

Hey friend,

LG was my worst section too, and I was scoring around the 165 range before I mastered it. People kept telling me, "just keep practicing and you'll get it." At first it was hard to believe, maybe because I was overly pessimistic that it was just something I wasn't going to 'get.' Anyhow, needless to say, I knew that I wanted/needed a 170+, so I sat down and started PTing (test/two tests a day in the three weeks leading up) and surely but slowly the points I missed on the games dwindled to -0. Eventually, after you do enough of these, you start recognizing the different types of games almost right off the bat. You're more familiar with them, and it becomes almost like a puzzle you've done before only with different pieces/rules.

Moral of the story is, as most will tell you, is to keep practicing. Get the Powerscore LG book. I personally took Testmasters so I used their techniques (which work great), but I feel if you're doing self-study the Powerscore book should be sufficient. Trust me, LG will become your best friend. Good luck!

The only annoying thing about LG is how you sometimes just dont see something obvious and lose time because of it, it doesn't involve any significant degree of maths or calculus tho, in response to your comment about the discrepancy between your LG performance and your high school grades. Mostly it is reading comprehension combined with some spatial ability and ability to combine bits of info together and apply to new situations.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =6&t=41657

Do the logic games part of this. Do it ALL; don't cheat yourself. If you do this i promise you it will come.

BUT LG is the best section to have problems with because it's arguably the easiest section to master

this is a myth.

i heard this over and over again as i was studying for the LSAT. it may be easy to improve on LG, but it's easy to improve on any section.

Another thing I'll mention is that it doesn't hurt, in fact it can greatly help, to rework games that give you trouble over and over again until you completely understand:

1) What every question is asking
2) What all the rules are saying
3) What all the deductions on the game are
4) How you knew to look for those deductions
5) How to approach each question type

#4 is key. A lot of games are easy when you already know all the deductions. The key is knowing what to look for and that can only really be learned through lots and lots of guided practice.

People have this attitude that once they've done a game they've "burned it". In fact some of my past students biggest gains have come from reworking old games (the Pohl children game is great for this type of approach, by the way).

Dude/dudette, I know exactly what you're saying. In June '09 I scored 164 w/ -10 LG, in Sept. I scored 163 '09 w/ -11 LG (and I was avg. 167ish in practice w/ improvement in games).

It just didn't click. I kinda want another crack at it but i've been out of UG for four years now and i'm ready to start school so I think I may just suck it up and go this fall. It is SOOOOOO frustrating hearing everyone talk about how LG is "easy" to improve on...

The fact is, however, you have to be pretty damn good at the LSAT to hit the 90th percentile even though you miss double-digits on one of the sections. If we could improve on LG we'd be looking at 170+ w/out having to improve much, if at all, on the other sections...frustrating!

Stringer6 wrote:

BUT LG is the best section to have problems with because it's arguably the easiest section to master

this is a myth.

i heard this over and over again as i was studying for the LSAT. it may be easy to improve on LG, but it's easy to improve on any section.

So because YOU couldn't get it that means it's a myth? lol. Naw, it's different for everyone, but most people on this site who come on with poor scores find that LG is the easiest to master.

I've also been a long time lurker and have never struggled with LG. Even since my first diagnostic, I have aced pretty much every set of games, and I've taken 40ish. I never looked at the LG bible or anything else: I always just re-noted the rules as simple equations for quick reference and to make any inferences, and set up the game regardless of what type it was. I guess I just brute forced every game and always had time to finish. Sure, I never finished in 20 minutes, but in 30 minutes I was usually done. If you have a strong math background, then I would try something like that. You can PM me if you want a more detailed explanation of what I did for games.

I got a 165 on the June LSAT too, but that was thanks to -14 total on LR after testing avg about -2 per LR section on all my prep tests. This was my third time on the LSAT, and the third time in a row I've dominated the games and mind-fart the LR questions. I'm just happy I finally scored above my diagnostic (164) and will hope to get off a waitlist (Illinois/WUSTL) with it.

Reconsider law school

What Canadian schools are you looking at? I know McGill for one isn't all about the LSATs...


I am totally cracking up at the reconsider law school meme going on here---165, top 8% or so of all takers (and if law schools knew much about testing, the range for this score is probably 163-167 considering test retest reliability) and he should reconsider law school.

I hope some of y'all realize this numbers game mentality stops holding up in the real world...

I'd like to mirror previous sentiment: repetition, repetition, repetition. I took the June '09 and got -10 on LG. The mauve dinosaur melted me down mentally. the rest of the month of June and July I did about 10 games a day, that made up 75% of my studying. I did all 10 of them in succession and started an 80 minute clock at the beginning so I could get my average each day. I did every game in existence and about half of them twice. By October I was confident I could do any logic game section in existence in under a half-hour. This probably wasn't true, but the pompous confidence I had going into the September LSAT was incredibly helpful. Come Test time, I finished in something around 28ish minutes, and got a perfect -0. I scored exactly the same on LR/RC so this jumped my score up 6 points.

The Logic games are the most learnable section, but you really have to put in the hours to train your brain.

in for LG fail... -18 on june test.. had a nervous breakdown... still managed a 159. Here i come October test. plan on doing every game up to 3x

rjh456 wrote:i've been studying for about 3 1/2 months now and have just recently had a break through in games. what did it for me was doing at minimum ten games a day for a week or two. all of a sudden i could just see deductions from miles away. i know you said you've done a lot of games but if you haven't tried doing that many a day for several weeks, i think that's you're best shot.

also, spending half a minute making any quick deductions is helpful. linkages between two or more rules and finding heavily restricted spots seem to be frequently tested on the games I've been doing, and after a while they're not so hard to see during setup.

i hope that helps, even though it isn't really original advice. but you know, with a 165 and 3.5, you have a pretty good shot at most Canadian schools in my opinion. especially mcgill if your softs are decent, since they have that "holistic" approach to ls apps.

Actually - I think this is exactly the kind of suggestion that would work for me. Will definitely be giving this method a shot, it's probably a great way to get me into that mindset leading up to the test. Thank you!

megaTTTron wrote: Nothing substantive to say - BUT LG is the best section to have problems with because it's arguably the easiest section to master, with some TLS help I know you'll rock it. I predict 170+. Good luck buddy, you're in a good spot.

You give me much hope -I'd be satisfied with a few points higher but I hope/pray you're right

Im in the same spot as you - rest of the LSAT is not an issue for me but I just a 167 with -10 on LG. The LG bible is good - and I know I got better at games and just had a bit of a meltdown so I figure go for it again and hope things will click a bit and next time I will be calmer. I guess for some of us its just a matter of limiting the damage of the LG section rather then mastering it. Good luck - I feel your pain.

Ok - I'm very new to forum posting (and am taking a break to write this while helping a friend move houses) so pls don't mind my laziness for responding to all of your amazing ideas at once. This is why I love TLS - the suggestions in this thread are exactly what this Canadian girl was looking for. I think I'll give my brain a little time to forget the games I worked on leading up to this LSAT and then do the major repetition/practice with them that a lot of you are suggesting. Seems to me that is exactly what I was missing last time, I never did study just LG intensively. Will probably also order the few tests I didn't hit yet from LSAC so that I have new material when I PT.

Also - to those who have the same problem with the LG section - yaay I am not alone! Hopefully with the suggestions above we can rock this the next time around

I'm applying to a lot of different Canadian schools (playing it safe) - but my top picks would be Osgoode, Ottawa, & UBC. I'm from U of T, and am applying there too as a shot in the dark but I know I don't have the numbers they're looking for and I'm ok with that. Most schools are holistic hence the reason I'm not too worried about the LSAT, however UBC is numbers focused and will drop a couple of your lowest grades in their calculations of GPA (and BC is gorgeous! so I definitely am going to do all I can to get in there). If I can get a good LSAT I have a shot at early admissions there so fingers crossed for round 3.

James2010 wrote:Im in the same spot as you - rest of the LSAT is not an issue for me but I just a 167 with -10 on LG. The LG bible is good - and I know I got better at games and just had a bit of a meltdown so I figure go for it again and hope things will click a bit and next time I will be calmer. I guess for some of us its just a matter of limiting the damage of the LG section rather then mastering it. Good luck - I feel your pain.

2 Words: Daay-AMN! You got a 167 with -10 on LG?? Wow... you should SO rewrite, you will definitely kill it. Let me know if you find anything that works (that goes for all of us in this odd little boat) and I'll do the same - Good luck man!

TheGambler wrote:

James2010 wrote:Im in the same spot as you - rest of the LSAT is not an issue for me but I just a 167 with -10 on LG. The LG bible is good - and I know I got better at games and just had a bit of a meltdown so I figure go for it again and hope things will click a bit and next time I will be calmer. I guess for some of us its just a matter of limiting the damage of the LG section rather then mastering it. Good luck - I feel your pain.

2 Words: Daay-AMN! You got a 167 with -10 on LG?? Wow... you should SO rewrite, you will definitely kill it. Let me know if you find anything that works (that goes for all of us in this odd little boat) and I'll do the same - Good luck man!

Yeah kind of surprised myself - I am all over these forums asking people if I should cancel the day after the test because I could feel I got 10 wrong on the games (mis-sketched the hybrid game BADLY) - I just didnt realize I barely missed anything on LR or RC

I am mostly relieved that if I score that will get me in somewhere but am definitely retaking

but hey I still know it feels I've been fighting these games for months...hopefully we'll both have breakthroughs soon

Hopefully we'll both have a break through on them soon

Similar position here: 162 in December with -10 LG, 165 in June with -12 LG. The first time I only studied for a month so the result wasn't that surprising, but this time I spent a fair amount of time and money on prep and thought I had LG well in hand. HA. I'm not sure about retaking in October as I'm afraid 3 attempts will look bad (kicking myself for stubbornly taking the test last December even though I clearly wasn't ready), especially if I can only manage to eke out another couple of points.