How long did it take you to catch on to logic games? Forum

[flash21]

Currently reading LGB and it seems a bit overwhelming at first. how long did it take you guys to catch onto LG?

[03152016]

.

[eerie_erie]

This might not be the answer you want to hear, but it really varies with the person. Just keep practicing; don't focus on the time frame so much as working hard every day to improve yourself. Of course if you're asking this because you are thinking about June testing, then I would say that you still have some time to get good at them but it will likely be a very compressed schedule.

[NoodleyOne]

I caught on quickly, but it took me awhile to be a consistent -0. For me I was always fond of logic puzzles growing up, so it wasn't as hard to adapt as others.

[okaygo]

It took me about two or three months. And for me personally it really helped tackling the games by type and in order of difficulty. Once I masterd basic linear games and relative ordering, determined/undetermined assignment grouping games fell into place nicely. I found that Manhattin LG helped me sooo much more in diagramming than LGB, so if LGB has you really stuck definitely explore your options.

[062914123]

.

[LSATGamesTutor]

The most efficient way I've found to catch on to logic games is to:

1) Only use past LSAT games
2) Only do only one game at a time (rather than a full section of 4 games)
3) After each game you do, check the explanations for each answer (a good free source is http://7sage.com/logic-game-explanations/)

If you got any questions wrong, the explanations will show you how to get the correct answer. Even if you answered every question correctly, there might be a better method of diagramming than the one you were using or a faster approach to finding the answer for one of the questions.

4) Absorb the methods of diagramming, making deductions and approaching questions shown in the explanations.
5) Wait a day after watching/reading and understanding the explanations, and then practice doing the game again.

Do a few games a day from old LSATs and I bet you'll feel fine in a few weeks.

If you feel like it's not working for you, contact me and I'll take a look at where you're going wrong.

[nyjets2090]

In my case, it took me months and my progress was incremental as opposed to gradual. I would go -14, -14, -13, -9, -9, -4, -4. Once you get the concepts down, the rest is about practice.

[MKX]

you really have to power through. on my diag, i went like -2 or -3 on LR + RC combined, and missed more than half of the LG section. it made me pretty panicky, and when i first started prepping, i would miss really "obvious" deductions that were absolutely essential to finishing a game in ~8 minutes. i was also making a lot of stupid mistakes, missing out on the real meaning of a rule or forgetting a deduction that i had previously made. the ONLY thing that helped me was carefully and slowly working my way through all the games i could get my hands on. there's really no substitute for putting in the house with LG, imo. you can try different strategies/books, but even when you find an approach that works for you, you still have to practice enough that it all becomes second nature.

Im the exact opposite. I missed 2 on lg and a lot on the other sections. I haven't done the lg bible yet but I miss 2-3 max when pting. Hopefully after I do bible it'll be -0s

[jcccc]

1 month, nonchalantly reading Manhattan LG and doing drills. LG was cake.

[JaviSTB]

I caught on quickly, but it took me awhile to be a consistent -0. For me I was always fond of logic puzzles growing up, so it wasn't as hard to adapt as others.

yeah, same with me.

[RhymesLikeDimes]

I caught on quickly, but it took me awhile to be a consistent -0. For me I was always fond of logic puzzles growing up, so it wasn't as hard to adapt as others.

Pretty much this. I went from -8 on my diagnostic to a consistent -2-3 after a week, but I didn't get to "-0 in <25min every-time" mode until I drilled the hell out of old games for 6 weeks.

[banjo]

I never really mastered LG--I consistently got 5-7 wrong, including on the real thing. However, recognizing that the LG is less than 25% of the test helped me play to my strengths and think about the test more holistically. A point is a point.

ETA: I don't want to discourage people from drilling games--just don't get into the silly mentality of "Everyone on TLS says this is the easiest section to destroy. So if I don't consistently get -0, I shouldn't even start LR or RC."

[okaygo]

I never really mastered LG--I consistently got 5-7 wrong, including on the real thing. However, recognizing that the LG is less than 25% of the test helped me play to my strengths and think about the test more holistically. A point is a point.

ETA: I don't want to discourage people from drilling games--just don't get into the silly mentality of "Everyone on TLS says this is the easiest section to destroy. So if I don't consistently get -0, I shouldn't even start LR or RC."

+1

[RhymesLikeDimes]

lol, enjoy Cooley. That's an incredibly stupid attitude to have. If you were only allowed one month to study, I might see your point. But, that's just loser-talk. Leaving easy points on the table because you don't feel like putting in the effort is ridiculous.

[Pneumonia]

I never really mastered LG--I consistently got 5-7 wrong, including on the real thing. However, recognizing that the LG is less than 25% of the test helped me play to my strengths and think about the test more holistically. A point is a point.

ETA: I don't want to discourage people from drilling games--just don't get into the silly mentality of "Everyone on TLS says this is the easiest section to destroy. So if I don't consistently get -0, I shouldn't even start LR or RC."

You use the same skills in LR and RC that you do in LG. LG has the most concrete right answers, followed by LR and then RC. In each section the right answer is objectively right, but the difficulty is amplified as you progress LG>LR>RC by added layers of misdirection and unnecessary language. There is no misdirection in LG (except maybe tricky answer choices)- no room to misinterpret a conclusion of a rule (unless you fail to read properly).

One reason everyone should strive for -0 on LG is that the skills it tests are even more crucial in LR. Similarly, a person wouldn't want to dive right into RC without mastering LR, since the fundamental question types are the same and LR prepares you for RC by giving a small passage with only one question.

Of course a -0 on RC doesn't guarantee an easy -0 on the other sections, but if you're -3'ing LG consistently then you're absolutely missing some skills that will help you in LR and RC. Maybe everyone can't get -0, but everyone should get to the point where time, not lack of skill, is the deterrent in LG. Once you're there start LR/RC if you must, but continue to drill LG.

[mindarmed]

a couple days because LG is probably a joke for most engineers

[Typhoon24]

took me a couple months to go from -2 per game to -0/-1 in the whole section. Takes a lot of practice. Generally speaking though, if you're SUPER focused, it shouldn't take more than 10 days to master them.