Top Law Schools

Just finished PT 59. I've done every PT up to this one and I plan on finishing up to PT 68 before my June LSAT.

Got a -5 in the LG section and a 168 overall. Getting pretty discouraged at this point.

I've gone through all the old games. I've gone through Manhattan's LG book once and Powerscore LG bible twice. The third game in this section tripped me up and I ended up skipping three questions in that game and ran out of time for the last question of game 4.

Is there anything I can do at this point or is it hopeless for me to get -0 on the LGs? I feel like my 170+ goal is pretty much fucked if I don't get close to perfect on this section. I have less than a month left...

LSAT History: Taken the official LSAT twice (162, cancelled 2nd score). I cancelled that score because I completely fucked up on the games.

If you know the proper approach and set-up for each game time, your problem is most likely just not being methodical in the set-up and questions. Have a game-plan for setting up each type of game and for what to do with different question stems (hypothetical, go to rules, check answer choices).
Most of all, have a game plan for when you are not sure what do. Staring at a game is the worst thing you can do so stay active, make decisions and keep moving.
Cannot give much more advice without knowing more specifics. If you want to pm me the game you tripped up on and how you attempted to diagram it I will take a look.

PT 59, Section 1, Game 3. My setup:

Also, I meant to do double arrows on the Geo and World History. But I edited it in my head. My main problem with this game was for some reason, the fact that there are two statistics sections.

Ok, just redid the game and it went smoothly. I messed up last time because of the two statistics sections messed with my head a bit. Meh. I still need to get better at responding to curveballs rather than freaking out like I did.

Use this approach for grouping games instead of the chain.

http://lsatblog.blogspot.ca/2009/12/log ... orest.html

CardozoLaw09 wrote:Use this approach for grouping games instead of the chain.

http://lsatblog.blogspot.ca/2009/12/log ... orest.html

Even this complicates it a bit more than necessary, imo (though if someone was fluent at it, it may equal to necessary so I don't have much gripe with it).

Either way OP's set-up seems WAY more complicated than necessary.

I use MLSAT's chain and prefer it over all of the other methods I've tried. Assuming you are 100% comfortable using it, I don't think your -5 is the logic chain's fault. As you said it probably has a lot to do with freaking out when there's a twist. This twist was actually pretty minor since Stats @ 3 is essentially a floater and almost inconsequential.

Like McDiddy said, you don't want to burn several minutes trying to think about how to handle an abnormal element. "Stay active" is great advice.

Also, make it easy on yourself by keeping your diagram clean and consistent. You have arrows looping around. After surveying the rules, keep elements situated around elements they interact with so you don't end up with a messy diagram. You can better visualize the game in your head if your written diagram is neat and space-efficient.



The bit on the right is just the inference that one of G/W (not both) must be in and R, J, or both must also be in.

Those setups look like a nightmare to me. I keep every relationship separate and just scan down vertically.

objection_your_honor wrote:I use MLSAT's chain and prefer it over all of the other methods I've tried. Assuming you are 100% comfortable using it, I don't think your -5 is the logic chain's fault. As you said it probably has a lot to do with freaking out when there's a twist. This twist was actually pretty minor since Stats @ 3 is essentially a floater and almost inconsequential.

Like McDiddy said, you don't want to burn several minutes trying to think about how to handle an abnormal element. "Stay active" is great advice.

Nah, it's not the chain's fault. When I see a grouping In/Out game, I usually get excited because on an easy game, I'd be able to finish in 5 minutes using the chain.

You're right. Once I figured out that minor twist, the game was cake. Too bad we don't get second tries on the real LSAT.

I was just stupid. I should have taken a deep breath and regrouped.

objection_your_honor wrote:Also, make it easy on yourself by keeping your diagram clean and consistent. You have arrows looping around. After surveying the rules, keep elements situated around elements they interact with so you don't end up with a messy diagram. You can better visualize the game in your head if your written diagram is neat and space-efficient.



The bit on the right is just the inference that one of G/W (not both) must be in and R, J, or both must also be in.

Damn. That's clean.

ManoftheHour wrote:

objection_your_honor wrote:Also, make it easy on yourself by keeping your diagram clean and consistent. You have arrows looping around. After surveying the rules, keep elements situated around elements they interact with so you don't end up with a messy diagram. You can better visualize the game in your head if your written diagram is neat and space-efficient.



The bit on the right is just the inference that one of G/W (not both) must be in and R, J, or both must also be in.

Damn. That's clean.

Yo did you use a ruler?