Top Law Schools

Hello wise denizens of TLS,

I've been lurking on the forums for a few months now (however, due to the fact that my prior username was overly revealing, I've now created a new account with a more anon username), but this is my first post.

Background info:
-Registered for October LSAT.
-solid GPA, average softs, aiming for T10 and >174 LSAT.
-Have been following Pithypike, except I'm using Manhattan (rather than PS) for LR and RC, and have been using both Manhattan and LGB for LG.
-Just took first PT (SuperPrep Test A) last week after month 1 of Pithypike, and, much to my pleasant surprise, got a 178 (-3 LG, -0 LR, -0 RC). Strict timing (finished LG with less than 10 seconds to go, but finished LR and RC comfortably), but didn't add a fifth section.
-Cold diagnostic a few months ago was 165, and that was with probably a solid extra 20 minutes for LG.

The issue:
My biggest concern with LG is that I am SLOW. Even if I had unlimited time, I would probably still miss a few (I know people say that LG can be a guaranteed -0, but I really don't see that as a possibility for me. RC? Sure. LR? Sure. LG? Hell no).

After doing month 1 of Pithypike, my average time per game for Basic Linear (both Balanced and Unbalanced) for all repeats was 6:49. My average time per game for all repeats of Advanced Linear (both Balanced and Unbalanced) was 9:08.

(Note: I had started studying back in April with the notion of taking it in June, but quickly abandoned that idea after a week or two. Nonetheless, I ended up doing some of the Basic Linear games 5-6 times since I started from the beginning when I picked up studying again at the end of June, so that average time for Basic Linear may be artificially low).

My other concern with LG is that things sometimes don't seem to "click" for me using the inference-heavy method of Manhattan and LGB. I'll sometimes miss inferences in a game (usually minor, but sometimes major), which slows me down significantly. Of course, sometimes I just make dumb mistakes.

I've certainly improved on both timing and "getting it" since I started studying, but I'm still far slower on LG than I feel comfortable with.

Possible solutions:
1) Continue with Pithypike's LG plan.

2) Take Manhattan's online (sadly, I live in a city that lacks in-person Manhattan courses) games-only course. It starts August 14, so I need to make this decision fairly quickly if I'm going to go with that.

3) Take Velocity's LG course. I've read that some people who struggled with games using the inference-heavy method did well using the (apparently) more brute-force method of Velocity. Unfortunately, I was not able to find any free videos on the Velocity site that actually demonstrated him doing a game to see if that method makes more sense to me-the only free LG videos currently listed are an intro to LG and a bunch of conditional reasoning videos.

4) Private tutor? I've read (on TLS1776's thread and others) that watching someone do a game in person (and vice versa) can help you learn things better than simply reading how to complete a game (and I'm not interested in any of the in-person prep courses offered in my area). Of course, this assumes I could find a qualified tutor in my city.

Also, cost is not a major deciding factor-I am extremely fortunate to have parents who have very generously offered to pay for a prep course, should I choose to take one.

Advice, TLSers? Has anyone taken the Manhattan games-only course? I've read a few threads on Velocity's courses, but if anyone has additional insights and/or recent experiences, I'd love to hear them as well. And for those who have used Pithypike, do you think there's a reasonable expectation that I will continue to improve on LG timing over the next two months, or should I not expect a significant improvement (especially on Linear games, since I've already finished those)?

Thanks in advance!

Blueprint LG. Get it here http://blueprintprep.com/lsat-book that's is all.

I just finished the entire Velocity LG course. If I could do it all over again I would simply buy his whole LSAT course and nothing else.

Having said that, you still need inference identification with his LG methods.

*edit --> would probably still read the Manhattan LR/RC.

Drawing out all possible scenarios/splitting game boards (7 sage) is not the same as seeing inferences. I will agree though, that the order with which Velocity has you do the questions will often help you see missed inferences for doing the later/harder questions.

Velocity, and its not even close. You are exactly the type of person that should be taking velocity!

Wormfather wrote:

tuffyjohnson wrote:I just finished the entire Velocity LG course. If I could do it all over again I would simply buy his whole LSAT course and nothing else.

Having said that, you still need inference identification with his LG methods.

*edit --> would probably still read the Manhattan LR/RC.

Yes you still need to make basic inferences but not the higher level ones that other prep companies require.

I think the biggest problem with most LG curricula is that they either stress up-front inferences, or brute forcing answer choices, without really stressing that both are valid methods, and you need to know how to do both in order to really have the best shot at killing LG.

If you know where to find inferences, they're not particularly difficult to find. Just find a couple rules that talk about the same player or slot, and combine them. If you know which rule types lead to scenarios and big deductions (blocks in ordering; must be together in grouping, as two examples), it's a lot easier to find them. And if you can regularly spot them, they will, inarguable, save you a lot of time.

However, you're not going to find every inference on every game. It's just not reasonable to think that.

So it's important to know what to look for to suggest inferences, while also knowing how to brute force a question in the most efficient manner so that you can quickly get through it. If you miss something up front, you can't just give up - you need to brute force your way through the questions.

So don't give up on inferences, but don't skip over brute force methods. They're both tools that will be useful.

Looks like I'll be signing up for the Velocity LG course, and maybe picking up the Blueprint LG book. I'll update on how my battle with LG is going after a few weeks with Velocity.

I greatly appreciate all the advice-I had been leaning toward taking the Manhattan class, but in retrospect, it would seem inadvisable to continue with a method of attacking games that just hasn't seemed to click for me. Thanks, everyone!

Wormfather wrote: For me and I suspect others, the problem is the transition. In the heat of battle it gets hard to know when to cut bait and run towards brute force. When working inferences its really easy to go into some sort of time warm where time shrinks on you.

In the end, I'd see a game, make the game board, write the rules, look for players who came up in more than one rule, make those inferences and then just get on with the brute force tactics.

Yep, the transition is hard. But it seems like you're doing it exactly right - you compare each rule to each other rule, make what inferences you can, and then get to the questions. I would say, thought, that you're not brute forcing at that point - you've made some inferences, so you're using those to answer the questions (or, at least, you should be). Brute forcing, to me, is when you just write down the rules and then hop into the questions with nothing else, trying out each answer choice until one works.

7sage

jk148706 wrote:7sage

I second this. Along with a TON of drilling. Just accept the fact that you will have to, on back-end games, move onto the question quickly after writing down the rules.

ThetaX wrote:

jk148706 wrote:7sage

I second this. Along with a TON of drilling. Just accept the fact that you will have to, on back-end games, move onto the question quickly after writing down the rules.

My concern with 7Sage is that I've seen it described as more similar in style/approach to Manhattan and PS, and that Velocity is a more notably different method of approaching games. Thoughts?

Also, for those who have taken Velocity-I've seen numerous posts that say having a foundation in games is helpful prior to taking Velocity (i.e. either having previously read LGB or Manhattan's LG or some other LG book). Should I continue working through Manhattan's LG book (I'm only through Conditional Grouping, so still have Basic Grouping, Open Grouping, 3D Grouping, and Hybrid games left to go in the book) while I take Velocity so that by the time he covers Grouping (assuming he doesn't start with that), I'll have a foundation from reading Manhattan? That's probably what I'm planning to do, unless I hear that it's unnecessary.