Appropriate way to study LG? Forum

[1sataker]

Hi,

I was wondering, what is the appropriate way to study LG?
Many people say if you study it appropriately, you will be fine with LG, it is learnable...but what exactly the appropriate way is?

Thank you for the help in advance.

[basedvulpes]

Post removed.

[1sataker]

Hi,

Thanks for the reply, but what is ??? part?
I'm currently reading or watching explanations after doing games, but have not repeated doing the same game...
Do people repeat doing the same game? If so, when and how often? Or should I do more new games instead of doing the same games?

Thanks,

[basedvulpes]

Post removed.

[basedvulpes]

Post removed.

[whacka]

Post removed.

[1sataker]

Hi,

Thanks for the reply, but what is ??? part?
I'm currently reading or watching explanations after doing games, but have not repeated doing the same game...
Do people repeat doing the same game? If so, when and how often? Or should I do more new games instead of doing the same games?

Thanks,

I was just joking with you, don't worry about it. It's useful to repeat games that you had a hard time with, but you should be trying to complete and understand as many games as possible so you're comfortable with anything they throw at you The understanding part is key. You really need to understand the mechanics of the games at a fundamental level, and that's not something anyone can teach you. That's something you need to get yourself by spending a lot of time with them.

lol Don't scare me cuz I'm kind of at a loss for LG and don't get jokes now
Thanks for the website, so I think JY also recommends to do the same game the next day, later, then later again etc...but I forgot the name of this method. But when I think of it I felt it would be a lot of work and wonder whether people use this method to achieve -0/-1...
Or there are any other ways they study for LG. I know as you said people practice differently but was wondering whether there is some consensus to study for LG.
Do you personally repeat the same games?

[1sataker]

A huge turning point in LG for me was when I learned how to look for inferences. If the question has you put a certain game piece in a certain spot, you need to draw as many inferences as you can from that information to make the game board as complete as possible. If you find yourself plugging answers in to the diagram without drawing inferences first, you will be taking up way too much time. When I started really focusing on inferences, I cut my time in HALF.

Thanks,
But I also found there are some games that we cannot draw many inferences (sometimes almost no inference and have to move on to Qs),
When do you see whether you can have many inferences and when you cannot? Any characteristics for those games without a lot of inferences?

[basedvulpes]

Post removed.

[1sataker]

lol Don't scare me cuz I'm kind of at a loss for LG and don't get jokes now
Thanks for the website, so I think JY also recommends to do the same game the next day, later, then later again etc...but I forgot the name of this
method. But when I think of it I felt it would be a lot of work and wonder whether people use this method to achieve -0/-1...
Or there are any other ways they study for LG. I know as you said people practice differently but was wondering whether there is some consensus to study for LG.
Do you personally repeat the same games?

I personally did not use the method of repeating the same game day after day to get into the 0/-1 range, but if it works for you then you should absolutely do it.

Perhaps other people can offer some other study methods, but I really don't think there's really much to do other than drill, test, review, repeat. What I meant by saying that everyone has their own way is that over the course of studying everyone develops their own system of symbols, processes, etc that are most efficient for them. I can't tell you know what will work best for you, only what worked best for me.

My suggestion to you is to just start diving head first into the problems, and to keep track of your results. If you're consistently getting too many questions wrong and are unhappy with your test scores then you need to keep experimenting, iterating, and working hard. I really can't stress enough that spending hours and hours mentally exercising with this content is what helps the most.

You seem truly dedicated to improving, so I believe you can do it. Best of luck.

Thanks!

[shump92]

Another fundamental way to look at LG is that they are basically the same thing as certain math problems, particularly optimization if you ever took precalc/calc. I think relying too much on a certain type of setup can be dangerous though. Most June test-takers were thrown off by our LG section as it was not as traditional.

You kind of have to learn how to take 2-3 minutes and get everything you can out of the rules in conjunction with each other. There are definitely certain types of patterns in LG that some of the materials mentioned above will help you understand better, but not every single game you could face will fit into one of those neat categories.

I think repeating games is smartest when you were completely lost the first time around. It helps you realize if you tend to miss rules on accident or make improper inferences. With enough evenly distributed practice, you should figure out what works for you. I wish I could provide better specific advice, but I did problems similar to LG in elementary school so this section just made sense to me right away. Good luck.

[1sataker]

Another fundamental way to look at LG is that they are basically the same thing as certain math problems, particularly optimization if you ever took precalc/calc. I think relying too much on a certain type of setup can be dangerous though. Most June test-takers were thrown off by our LG section as it was not as traditional.

You kind of have to learn how to take 2-3 minutes and get everything you can out of the rules in conjunction with each other. There are definitely certain types of patterns in LG that some of the materials mentioned above will help you understand better, but not every single game you could face will fit into one of those neat categories.

I think repeating games is smartest when you were completely lost the first time around. It helps you realize if you tend to miss rules on accident or make improper inferences. With enough evenly distributed practice, you should figure out what works for you. I wish I could provide better specific advice, but I did problems similar to LG in elementary school so this section just made sense to me right away. Good luck.

Thanks for the advice. I did not take a calc class, but maybe I want to check it out later...
I wish my elementary school provided similar games Was it like IQ test/problem solving questions?

[KMart]

Drill.
Drill.
Drill.
Review.

At some point the patterns and inferences and the way you format the game setup comes (or it did for me).

[shump92]

Thanks for the advice. I did not take a calc class, but maybe I want to check it out later...
I wish my elementary school provided similar games Was it like IQ test/problem solving questions?

Problem solving questions. This was part of a special thing at my school though so it really isn't that common. If you drill enough games, it should hopefully click at some point. Just like math in general.

[Mint-Berry_Crunch]

Post removed...

[1sataker]

Drill.
Drill.
Drill.
Review.

At some point the patterns and inferences and the way you format the game setup comes (or it did for me).

Thanks for the advice. I did not take a calc class, but maybe I want to check it out later...
I wish my elementary school provided similar games Was it like IQ test/problem solving questions?

Problem solving questions. This was part of a special thing at my school though so it really isn't that common. If you drill enough games, it should hopefully click at some point. Just like math in general.

More and more I've been thinking of games as Legos. You just have some conditional statements that are blocks, and you're putting them together to see if they fit.
Make sure you understand/memorize the rules, games get a lot easier when you have the rules in your working memory, because you don't have to scramble and reference everything.
Make sure you conditional logic/ diagramming is on point. This will probably get better as you study more in general.
Manhattan LG and 7sage are really helpful resources. The big key is to just do a ton of games so maybe look into buying one of the bundles off cambridgelsat.com.

Thank you guys for those advice, I'll do as many LG problems as possible then.
Can I ask when you "click"ed? Like after doing how many PTs or games?
I mean...did you do all games?
And I found I'm weak at those questions asking substitute rules to make the same consequences...do you have any advice for this kind of question or if I do many LG, it will click as well? I was wondering because it seems this question start to appear relatively recently...

[Mint-Berry_Crunch]

Post removed...

[KMart]

I'm not sure when I really "clicked". I read the LG Bible and maybe around the end of that?

[shump92]

Rule subs are rare.
Look at back at your original deductions, the ones you made before going into the questions. Ask yourself "what effect did this rule have on the game" what deductions could you make by combining the rule being suspended with other rules? E.g maybe a variable was forced to go only first or second.
Then look for an answer choice that says that, but maybe in a sneaker way.
Wrong answers will be very goldilocks.
They won't make enough restrictions, and allow things to move around too much.
They'll be overly restrictive, to the point where the game is now more narrow.
The right answer will be between this.
For these questions, imho, it's easier to work by eliminating wrong answers and moving to what's right.

Yeah this is really great advice for those questions. The test makers seem to like throwing it in now, so you should expect it on test day. But based on the existing practice tests, it only seems to come up once in the section. So worst case you get a -1 in LG because you have to guess on that question.

Rule sub questions can honestly take like 3-5 minutes to get right so it's a waste of time to do them unless you have already gone through the whole section one time. They are so different from other questions that the time spent moving onto another game can actually help the correct answer be more clear to you later. Main point of my post: don't worry if rule subs are really hard for you that is the point of this question type.

[pittsburghpirates]

Post removed.

[Mint-Berry_Crunch]

Post removed...

[1sataker]

Rule subs are rare.
Look at back at your original deductions, the ones you made before going into the questions. Ask yourself "what effect did this rule have on the game" what deductions could you make by combining the rule being suspended with other rules? E.g maybe a variable was forced to go only first or second.
Then look for an answer choice that says that, but maybe in a sneaker way.
Wrong answers will be very goldilocks.
They won't make enough restrictions, and allow things to move around too much.
They'll be overly restrictive, to the point where the game is now more narrow.
The right answer will be between this.
For these questions, imho, it's easier to work by eliminating wrong answers and moving to what's right.

Rule subs are rare.
Look at back at your original deductions, the ones you made before going into the questions. Ask yourself "what effect did this rule have on the game" what deductions could you make by combining the rule being suspended with other rules? E.g maybe a variable was forced to go only first or second.
Then look for an answer choice that says that, but maybe in a sneaker way.
Wrong answers will be very goldilocks.
They won't make enough restrictions, and allow things to move around too much.
They'll be overly restrictive, to the point where the game is now more narrow.
The right answer will be between this.
For these questions, imho, it's easier to work by eliminating wrong answers and moving to what's right.

Yeah this is really great advice for those questions. The test makers seem to like throwing it in now, so you should expect it on test day. But based on the existing practice tests, it only seems to come up once in the section. So worst case you get a -1 in LG because you have to guess on that question.

Rule sub questions can honestly take like 3-5 minutes to get right so it's a waste of time to do them unless you have already gone through the whole section one time. They are so different from other questions that the time spent moving onto another game can actually help the correct answer be more clear to you later. Main point of my post: don't worry if rule subs are really hard for you that is the point of this question type.

Thanks for the advice! So it's true for any section to know when to skip a question and know when to use elmination...

I'm not sure when I really "clicked". I read the LG Bible and maybe around the end of that?

woa...after reading the LG book? that's fast

A huge turning point in LG for me was when I learned how to look for inferences. If the question has you put a certain game piece in a certain spot, you need to draw as many inferences as you can from that information to make the game board as complete as possible. If you find yourself plugging answers in to the diagram without drawing inferences first, you will be taking up way too much time. When I started really focusing on inferences, I cut my time in HALF.

Thanks,
But I also found there are some games that we cannot draw many inferences (sometimes almost no inference and have to move on to Qs),
When do you see whether you can have many inferences and when you cannot? Any characteristics for those games without a lot of inferences?

Often when you can't make many inferences based on the initial rules, the questions will be "local" in nature and focus on applications of the rules you have. What i mean by that is, the questions will supply a condition that allows you to make inferences (i.e. If F is the third person in line at a deli, then what must be true?). In order to solve those types of questions, it works really well to draw a another smaller diagram near your question, place the condition in your diagram, and plug away on making inferences.

Learning when to move away from the overall diagram and move onto the questions takes time and experience to learn, but when I found the sweet spot for me it helped immensely much like whacka mentioned. Keep pluggin away, you'll get it.

To echo basedvulpes, the 7Sage videos were immensely helpful when I was first starting. JY is great at explaining things and will definitely help with your understanding.

Goof luck OP

Thanks,
Sounds like it may help to quickly look at questions and if they have many conditional questions (starting "if") there aren't many inferences to make and should move on to questions soon



By the way, for those "Can't be true" questions without conditional statement, I often use precious work to eliminate some answer choices and do trial&error...is this an efficient way to answer this kind of question? Or I should combine rules to make inferences before see answer choices? (since there's no conditional statement, it means I missed some inference at beginning...)

[KMart]

I'm not sure when I really "clicked". I read the LG Bible and maybe around the end of that?

woa...after reading the LG book? that's fast

I was also drilling along the way.

[Mint-Berry_Crunch]

Post removed...

[shump92]

Thanks for the advice! So it's true for any section to know when to skip a question and know when to use elmination...

YES! This is probably the MOST IMPORTANT thing to keep in mind with the LSAT. One question is worth a point at most, no matter how difficult it is.