Good book for non-actual LG questions? Forum

[IronSkadden]

Hi there,

I'm prepping for the June LSAT and have done most of the LG sections from prep tests prior to 43 (saving the last ~15 LG sections for full-length practice tests). I want to log more LG practice but do not want to use LGs from tests after 43. Does anyone know a book with many non-actual LGs (LGs created by the testing company that produces the book, and not LSAC)?

How is Kaplan 180? Logic Games by REA?

Thanks for your help.

[Jeffort]

Stick with real LSAT games, there are plenty available. Re-do the older ones so that you get better at figuring out the most efficient ways to approach the games and solve the questions.

Fake LSAT is different and as such does not help you get more familiar with the style and patterns of LSAC written games.

[soj]

You're better off redoing actual problems, particularly ones that gave you problems. Steve Schwartz's LSAT Blog has some fake questions that are probably LSAC-calibre (I don't know for sure, but I think it's reasonable to think this given LSAT Blog's quality), but you shouldn't be afraid to redo PTs. Unlike LR and RC, LG actually has very good replay value.

[skippy1]

I used Ace logic games. I found them to be tougher than LSAT games - although I liked them because they were excellent for warm up questions before the exam and also for experimental sections.

[IronSkadden]

Thanks for the info, everyone. I ordered Ace Logic Games. While I prefer real questions, I've done each pre-PT 43 LG around 2-3 times, averaging 7 minutes to complete. At this point, the inferences jump out at me and I don't think I'm exercising my deductive skills. Hence, the need for new questions.

[Manhattan LSAT Noah]

You can also try out our games.

[TheSteelKid]

You can also try out our games.

ANY FAKE GAMES STINK, THESE INCLUDED. ONLY DO REAL GAMES, DON'T BE FOOLED.

[panjam09]

You're better off redoing actual problems, particularly ones that gave you problems. Steve Schwartz's LSAT Blog has some fake questions that are probably LSAC-calibre (I don't know for sure, but I think it's reasonable to think this given LSAT Blog's quality), but you shouldn't be afraid to redo PTs. Unlike LR and RC, LG actually has very good replay value.

Absolutely not. As Jeffort said, or to paraphrase, fake games just aren't the same.

[TheSteelKid]

You're better off redoing actual problems, particularly ones that gave you problems. Steve Schwartz's LSAT Blog has some fake questions that are probably LSAC-calibre (I don't know for sure, but I think it's reasonable to think this given LSAT Blog's quality), but you shouldn't be afraid to redo PTs. Unlike LR and RC, LG actually has very good replay value.

Absolutely not. As Jeffort said, or to paraphrase, fake games just aren't the same.

I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THIS QUOTE. I JUST DID A MANHATTAN FAKE LSAT GAME AND THE STRUCTURE WAS NOTICEABLY DIFFERENT. THEY ARE NOT WORTH THE TIME JUST STICK WITH REAL LSAT MATERIAL.

[Kurst]

Unofficial logic games (from Ace the LSAT Logic Games, Manhattan LSAT, or LSAT Blog) are useful for supplemental LG practice -- they are not a substitute for logic games from actual LSATs. Some of them do a pretty good job of replicating actual logic games, but since they have not been subjected to rigorous examination by LSAC psychometricians, or pretested in experimental sections, they ought to be approached with caution. Develop strong analytical reasoning skills with official games before playing around with unofficial games.