Focus exclusively on LG until it's not holding me back? Forum

[mlansky]

I have a question I'm hoping you guys will have some opinions on... I'm prepping for the June LSAT and my LG game is still weaker than my LR and RC... I usually miss 5-10 per LG section, 2-4 per LR section, and 1-3 per RC section. I obviously want to fine-tune LR and RC, but I'm considering spending the next 2 or 3 weeks exclusively on LG, going back through the LGB and doing game-type after game-type like in the pithy pike plan, not worrying about LR or RC practice and only doing 1 or 2 PTs in the next couple weeks until I am consistently getting near-perfect LG, then just doing lots of PTs and review...

tl;dr- Should I focus exclusively on LG for a few weeks since it's my weakest section?

[objection_your_honor]

You should focus on your weakest section. It's not necessary to do it exclusively, but yes if you are still missing 10 in a section you should definitely revisit the fundamentals.

Check out Manhattan LSAT's LG 3rd edition. Many people here find it very helpful.

[ManoftheHour]

Tag. We're essentially LSAT twins. If it weren't for my LG, my 162 would have been a 168-170.

[SFSpartan]

When I studied I focused 1/2 my time on my weakest section (generally LG), with the remaining half divided between the other two (I didn't do much prep for the writing sample). PowerScore's LG bible was a huge help to me when I needed to revisit the fundamentals.

[ManoftheHour]

You should focus on your weakest section. It's not necessary to do it exclusively, but yes if you are still missing 10 in a section you should definitely revisit the fundamentals.

Check out Manhattan LSAT's LG 3rd edition. Many people here find it very helpful.

Also OP, this. Grouping games were definitely kicking my ass. I can't emphasize the importance of using Manhattan's Logic Chain method in these games. After going through the Manhattan LG book, I get excited every time I see a grouping LG. I went from struggling to ripping through them in 4 to 5 minutes with 100% accuracy.

[francesfarmer]

When I studied I focused 1/2 my time on my weakest section (generally LG), with the remaining half divided between the other two (I didn't do much prep for the writing sample). PowerScore's LG bible was a huge help to me when I needed to revisit the fundamentals.

Don't prep for the writing sample.

[whereskyle]

My LSAT Diagnostic = 159 (-13 in LG)

My LSAT Score = 170 ( -1 in LG).


Study the logic games religiously, and it can become a set of free points (practically).

[mlansky]

Thanks for the responses... I'm probably forgetting how easy it is for my mind to burn out after a dozen LGs in a row, so I'll probably use Kaplan Mastery LR and various RC sections to break up the monotony but not worry much about general strategy on them...

Tag. We're essentially LSAT twins. If it weren't for my LG, my 162 would have been a 168-170.

Feels good to have company. I'm comforted by the fact that my weakest subject is generally the most improvable... if I were getting -10s per RC or LR section, I'd be sweating.

Also, just ordered the Manhattan book, thanks for the recommendation...

[magickware]

Eh.

On my first diagnostic I got a 7/24 or something on LG.

Now I consistently get -0 unless I have a brain fart and misread a rule (which, incidentally, is happening more and more often. I think I might be burning out).

I just did every game in existence at least once, then did them again. Then I got to realizing that the rules are the only thing that really matters and from then on -0 is the rule.

But one thing that is just incredibly important to realize is that the way the variables can be distributed is equally, if not more, important than the rules themselves. Many grouping games hinge entirely on you realizing how the distribution works. If you get this, then the rules just fit in automatically and the game is cake. If you don't understand how the distribution works, then you're sorta fucked.

In fact, I'd recommend that you spend as much time as you want on each game just reading the rules and the set-up and see how they interact with one another. Do this until the set-up and the inference making is just second-nature. While there are certain games that just punish you in the questions themselves, the vast majority hinge on you understanding 1 or 2 aspects of how the rules play with one another. So take a lot of time understanding how this works. There's really not a whole lot of ways that LSAC can play with the rules. So the moment you understand one concept, you'll likely see it on another game of the same or similar type.

Word of advice- While my LG has improved dramatically, my RC is still where it is and my LR is finally getting better after close to 5 months of me focusing most of my efforts on it. Unless you're used to reading in the way LR demands, I'd strongly recommend that you devote more time to this than the LG. LG really just requires you to just get that the rules work together. Once you really understand what that means and can apply it effortlessly, then LG is easy. LR, on the other hand, requires you to understand each of the 12 question types well and you developing appropriate strategies for all of them. And LR can be far more brutal in the way LSAC asks questions than LG can be. The hardest LG is easy (relatively speaking) once you get that the rules work together. The same cannot be said for LR.

[tuffyjohnson]

You should focus on your weakest section. It's not necessary to do it exclusively, but yes if you are still missing 10 in a section you should definitely revisit the fundamentals.

Check out Manhattan LSAT's LG 3rd edition. Many people here find it very helpful.

Also OP, this. Grouping games were definitely kicking my ass. I can't emphasize the importance of using Manhattan's Logic Chain method in these games. After going through the Manhattan LG book, I get excited every time I see a grouping LG. I went from struggling to ripping through them in 4 to 5 minutes with 100% accuracy.

How does Manhatten's chain method differ from Blueprint's?