How bad were you at logic games to start? Forum

[fosterp]

I've just started working on the LGB and have made my way through the basic and advanced linear sections, and I am starting to get discouraged by how bad I am. I generally can make a good diagram and do basic inferences, but it seems I can never spot the other inferences that are necessary to do the harder questions, and end up taking way more time than is allowed.

I haven't gotten my preptests in the mail yet so I am only restricted to the few practice Qs in the bible. Does this kind of stuff just sort of become second nature once you have done enough of the same types of games?

[juleesong]

Practice is key. After a bit you will figure out what works best for you - not necessarily what the LGB recommends.

[Stanford4Me]

I was horrible at games, then I got mediocre. I wouldn't say I ever "mastered" games, but I didn't do them as often as I should have.

[ConMan345]

I went from missing half of the LG questions on practice tests to missing 1 on the real thing. Not perfect, haha, but quite the improvement. They can be learned.

[LLB2JD]

Don't worry. The more you practice, the more you'll get better. You'll start seeing things, and it'd become instinctive.

[TCScrutinizer]

I went from -6 to 0.

[General Tso]

went from -12 to -2 on PT's with regularity

actual LSAT one game had no room to diagram, so -5

[asoularisen]

-9ish to start; one readthrough of LGB and a few practice tests, and I got a -2 on the real thing.

[TMT90]

I went from -8 to -10 to start and gradually improved to -4 to -6, and after that it was mostly -0 to -2. On my first PT after I read through the LGB I scored -1 in that section, so i'd say that's a great improvement. Don't be discouraged, just keep working hard and practicing.

[Hannibal]

I got -20 my first practice test, now I go from -0 to -4 or 5 if I have a game that I don't get.

[dakatz]

I started out getting about 10-12 wrong per section, but I knew in my mind that this was the one section I had complete "control" over, in that I could master it and use the score as a base foundation. On my final 5 or 6 practice tests, as well as the real exam, I didn't get a single LG question wrong. So just practice and don't get down on yourself if you start off poorly. Many of us were in the same position.

[let/them/eat/cake]

took the LSAT basically cold after having done like one PT and got -13 on games (164). Figured out i had a glaring weakness, LGBed it up and took every single PT and games section i could get my hands on, multiple times. Started PTing games between -2 and -0. Still got -5 on my last test (mauve dinosaurs = implosion and running out of time). Still, it worked out, and it's completely beatable.

[tomwatts]

Pretty awful. I was so slow I was getting through maybe 2 games in 35 minutes at first (took about an hour or so to do an entire section at first). First real test, -1 on games.

If you think that you need inferences to do questions, your answer-testing methods are not good enough.

[doublefocus4]

I've almost finished going through the LGB and this thread is definitely major encouragement for me. On my cold LGB section, I got -13. Now I'm getting about -4 or -5, however, time is still a big issue for me cos I've been doing 40min LG sections. It's great comfort to know some people faced similar time issues but were able to practice their way to success.

[cavebat2000]

I was REALLY BAD. So I did each one like 10 times and I got better.

[fosterp]

Pretty awful. I was so slow I was getting through maybe 2 games in 35 minutes at first (took about an hour or so to do an entire section at first). First real test, -1 on games.

If you think that you need inferences to do questions, your answer-testing methods are not good enough.

Problem I am having is if I miss an inference I will get a question that doesn't have any answers that I can quickly eliminate, and doing a hypothetical for each one takes up too much time.

My accuracy is generally 100% unless I misread a question or inference, i just end up taking way too long.

[dominkay]

Pretty bad. I was fairly accurate, but really slow. Often, I was not getting to the last game at all. People say logic games is the easiest section to improve on, but I continued to find it difficult for about two months. Finally, a week before the test, something clicked. In the week leading up to the test, I was finishing LG with a few minutes to spare.

On test day, I had five minutes left for the last logic game, misinterpreted a single word and missed a block of 5 question in a row.

But I still got a good score, so whatever.

Moral of the story: even if you continue to suck at logic games, you can do pretty well. And I could be totally wrong, but it seems to me that logic games is the section that is least related to the skills necessary for law and law student type work.

[mbw]

I started out getting maybe half right. Ten months later, -0 on the LSAT. Just keep doing them over and over -- I think I did every published PT's games section at least twice.

[MD/JD2B]

If you ever played "Clue" as a kid, you have a head start.

[ArchRoark]

I was horrible when I started off... couldnt even finish half the section... I practiced LGs a ton and it paid off... by my last few PT's I was consistently acing the section. -0 on my real LSAT

IMHO the LG is the most "learn-able" section followed by LR

[pjo]

just reiterating what ppl on here have already said, practice practice practice. I followed pithypike's guide but only for LG's. Breaking up tests and putting each game in a stack as to their "type" as listed by Powerscore. I went through the LG bible twice (the second time goes quickly). I timed myslef on every game individually. Any game that I missed more than one or took me longer than 9mins to complete I did again, and again until I got it down to minus 0 and in 8 mins. When I started studying I only got half right, by the end I was missing -1 or -2, a few PT's with -0. I got to the point where I didn't even have to think it was just like instinct. On the other hand though, my friend and I both did a powerscore course. We both diagnostic tested around the same score (low lol). I studied probably twice as much as him, but he still studied quite a bit. At the begining he only got about half right, by the time of the test he only got half right. I tried to help him out a bit but I could just tell something wasn't "clicking". He's going to re-take in October though, so hopefully it works out for him.

[Lokomani]

The consensus from what I've gathered is that the LSAT is (to some degree) a learnable test, especially since most test takers are not comfortable or familiar with the type of reasoning on the exam (when we first start studying).

To directly answer your question, I personally got -11 on my first AR (LG) section, on my last timed PT AR was -0. So once the games become fluid for you, I expect you'll start to visualize the possibilities (as opposed to following a strict system).

[sumus romani]

I was horrible when I started off... couldnt even finish half the section... I practiced LGs a ton and it paid off... by my last few PT's I was consistently acing the section. -0 on my real LSAT

IMHO the LG is the most "learn-able" section followed by LR

+1

[shutterbug]

To the OP: Don't worry - LG is everyone's worst section in the beginning. I know people who went from around -20 to near perfection. I went from -17 or -18 to -4 on the actual test. As everyone has stated, it is the most learnable section.

Please don't be frazzled by people professing to score -5 on their initial timed diagnostic on LG. They are full of shit.

[dominkay]

To the OP: Don't worry - LG is everyone's worst section in the beginning. I know people who went from around -20 to near perfection. I went from -17 or -18 to -4 on the actual test. As everyone has stated, it is the most learnable section.

Please don't be frazzled by people professing to score -5 on their initial timed diagnostic on LG. They are full of shit.

This is a really crazy and bitter comment. Some people are actually naturally good at games. I'm not one of those people, but that doesn't mean I have to deny their existence.