Blueprint vs Manhattan for LG Forum

[179orBust]

Which is the better book? Looking to buy a book to help me with games. Any advice would be really helpful. TIA

[Clyde Frog]

I thought Manhattan was great. Haven't read Blueprint.

[179orBust]

Thanks Clyde. In what way exactly did the book help you? Was LG your weakness or did you just use the book to refine your methods?

[Clyde Frog]

LG was my worst section. I basically took everyone's word on here that LGs should be a guaranteed -0, which honestly isn't true. You need to have a good handle with logic games to go -0 in newer tests. I Went through the Powerscore book and didnt improve a ton. I'd have PTs, especially in the 50s, where id go LR -1/-2, RC -2/-3 and LG -5 or somewhere along those lines. Not a fan of Manhattan's in-out game setup but everything else was great in the book.

Just adding after the Manhattan LG book I probably went through every game ever around 3x each, focusing on making a proper diagram instead of focusing on the game type.

[179orBust]

Appreciate the response, thanks!

[flash21]

what makes blueprint better IMO is they don't do the dumb in and out set up. I have both books

[downbeat14]

Blueprint is far better. Used it (plus lots of practice) to go -0 on June 2014 LG along with the LSAT trainer for upper 170s. Manhattans in and out set up was really lackluster and I tossed it without looking further after browsing it in a public library. I might be remembering this wrong, but I think a lot of the M games were made up, whereas BP only uses real games (CF can correct me if I'm remembering this wrong). I don't like using fake questions bc there are so many real ones out there.

Also the author of the Trainer used to write for Manhattan, so if you use the trainer you get M methods to add to your toolkit, but a little better (he has some rules with shapes that are fantastic, and I think Manhattans version of that is using some kind of dot system that is less visually impactful to my eye). I'm a big fan of the Trainer.

BP has good drills on fundamental logical principles and key deductions. My only wish was that it had more material on creating scenarios, had to really perfect that myself bc they didn't go into as many examples of those. My only other complaint is they use really recent games, so I had to adjust which PTs I used for diagnostics. Something to think through when you are planning your PT schedule.

[Deleterious]

Blueprint is far better. Used it (plus lots of practice) to go -0 on June 2014 LG along with the LSAT trainer for upper 170s. Manhattans in and out set up was really lackluster and I tossed it without looking further after browsing it in a public library. I might be remembering this wrong, but I think a lot of the M games were made up, whereas BP only uses real games (CF can correct me if I'm remembering this wrong). I don't like using fake questions bc there are so many real ones out there.

Also the author of the Trainer used to write for Manhattan, so if you use the trainer you get M methods to add to your toolkit, but a little better (he has some rules with shapes that are fantastic, and I think Manhattans version of that is using some kind of dot system that is less visually impactful to my eye). I'm a big fan of the Trainer.

BP has good drills on fundamental logical principles and key deductions. My only wish was that it had more material on creating scenarios, had to really perfect that myself bc they didn't go into as many examples of those. My only other complaint is they use really recent games, so I had to adjust which PTs I used for diagnostics. Something to think through when you are planning your PT schedule.

BP is "far better" and yet you only browsed Manhattan in the library before tossing it aside? I think there may be some problems with your reasoning there, bud. Manhattan doesn't use fake games.

[downbeat14]

BP is "far better" and yet you only browsed Manhattan in the library before tossing it aside? I think there may be some problems with your reasoning there, bud. Manhattan doesn't use fake games.[/quote]

Lol, ok. I'll look to your impeccable experience as a LSAT master moving forward as a guide to how I should structure my reasoning patterns. Thanks for letting me know how inferior I am to you and your mountain of LSAT knowledge.

Either way the conditional grouping method alone was enough for me to feel that the methods were inferior. Just my opinion.

So I was wrong or maybe the older edition I looked at had some made up games and they have done away with that. CF, am I crazy that the older version had made up games?

[gatesome]

either is better than none

both might not be better than either

[Clyde Frog]

BP is "far better" and yet you only browsed Manhattan in the library before tossing it aside? I think there may be some problems with your reasoning there, bud. Manhattan doesn't use fake games.

Lol, ok. I'll look to your impeccable experience as a LSAT master moving forward as a guide to how I should structure my reasoning patterns. Thanks for letting me know how inferior I am to you and your mountain of LSAT knowledge.

Either way the conditional grouping method alone was enough for me to feel that the methods were inferior. Just my opinion.

So I was wrong or maybe the older edition I looked at had some made up games and they have done away with that. CF, am I crazy that the older version had made up games?[/quote]


I had the 3rd edition, which had real games. I'm not sure about the older books. Manhattan LG worked fine for me, but then again I probably studied more than normal. I can say with confidence that their LR book is top notch, though.

[Deleterious]

Lol, ok. I'll look to your impeccable experience as a LSAT master moving forward as a guide to how I should structure my reasoning patterns. Thanks for letting me know how inferior I am to you and your mountain of LSAT knowledge.

Noise, verbal diarrhea, strawmen, etc.

Either way the conditional grouping method alone was enough for me to feel that the methods were inferior. Just my opinion.

So I was wrong or maybe the older edition I looked at had some made up games and they have done away with that. CF, am I crazy that the older version had made up games?

Looks like I touched a nerve. You admit to not using the book --and further confirm this fact by claiming M uses fake games-- yet you still felt qualified to comment on its quality. I wish I could be like you and evaluate books I haven't read. Hilariously, you then enthusiastically recommend Mike Kim and the Trainer, while acknowledging that he contributed to the supposedly inferior Manhattan LG materials. How does that work exactly? Did MK not understand the LSAT when he wrote for Manhattan? If the Trainer includes the "M methods to add to your toolkit" why is that a good thing? How can you be a "big fan" of the Trainer when it includes these inferior "M methods?" LOL, you're all over the place.

(NB--I like the Trainer and Mike Kim and have no idea what, if anything, he contributed to Manhattan LG. Just pointing out the contradictions in your remarks.)

[hopeboaltberkeley]

I read both (dunno if they were the latest editions).

Blueprint was a lot like PowerScore, except longer, less dry (BP tries to be more humorous, but don't expect to laugh out loud), and with more intuitive templates for relative ordering games.

I remember really liking a lot of Manhattan, but I personally found some of their nonlinear game templates to be wacky.

I'm glad I looked over both just for the extra practice, and the ability to take a break from cambridge packets to read. But I can understand not wanting to shell out the money for a second book.

[hopeboaltberkeley]

LG was my worst section. I basically took everyone's word on here that LGs should be a guaranteed -0, which honestly isn't true. You need to have a good handle with logic games to go -0 in newer tests. I Went through the Powerscore book and didnt improve a ton. I'd have PTs, especially in the 50s, where id go LR -1/-2, RC -2/-3 and LG -5 or somewhere along those lines. Not a fan of Manhattan's in-out game setup but everything else was great in the book.

Just adding after the Manhattan LG book I probably went through every game ever around 3x each, focusing on making a proper diagram instead of focusing on the game type.

Games were also my problem section. I never became great at them, but by the end I did improve a bit by repeating tons of practice problems and reading techniques/game explanations. Some also like video tutorials such as 7Sage, but they never did it for me -- more of a textual learner i guess.