Top Law Schools

Hey guys. Well I'm finally ready to start drilling LG. (I would have started sooner but I decided to take the time to go through Manhattan's guide to in addition to the LGB) I have all the games from PTs 19-38 scanned and grouped by type. Wondering... what might be a better way to go: cycling through one type (so one stack--say, start with basic linear) and getting fast and accurate at that type before moving on to another type, or doing some from all types in one session and cycling that way?

Also, I plan on drilling the In-Out games twice right in succession, once using Powerscore's method and once using Manhattan's because I'm still not sure which one will be better for me. I'm leaning toward Manhattan's "Logic Chain" diagram, but those things can be pretty cumbersome, and I've noticed lend themselves much better to the perfectly spaced and plotted computer renditions in the book than they do in human handwriting (especially under time constraint no doubt). Just out of curiosity, which one does TLSF prefer?

As always, thank you for the help!

Do one type at a time. That will allow you to master that type of game and figure out the most efficient way to set up and execute it too.

Thanks, any thought on the Powerscore vs. Manhattan In-Out methods?

locthebloke wrote:Thanks, any thought on the Powerscore vs. Manhattan In-Out methods?

I've only learned the PS method, but the Manhattan method has certainly gained steam among people taking in October. Some seem to find it a little complicated visually and unnecessary (for those who know Powerscore). If I were you, I'd just learn one because trying two out over that much work can be really difficult and waste time. If you can write neatly with your set-ups, I'd maybe go with Manhattan. The fact that I do fine on them as well as my ability to make a simple diagram look like a 5 year old's crayon drawing of their family are the main reason I haven't invested time in the Manhattan method.