Logic Games plateau. Forum

[MrSam]

I've improved quite a bit on LR, and a tad on RC. However, for some reason I can't, for the life of me, improve my LG score. I know timing is my enemy when it comes to this section. I takes me 12-15 minutes to get through even the simplest of games. I can do 2 games per section, with a -0 to -2 score, but I seldom finish, or even start the third game. I have been studying for about 1.5 months. On my first PT, I couldn't even do one game. So, going from 0 games to 2 games is an improvement, but certainly not where I want to be come test day.
How long did it take you guys and gals to get to the point where you were completing all 4 games, with a -0 to -1 score?
Any tips?

Here is how I approach the games:
-Read the stimulus and rules.
-Figure out what kind of game it is.
-Set up my diagram/board/table, etc.
-Attempt to make deductions (I fail horribly at this, since I get flustered due to the time limit and feel like there aren't any to make - seldom do I find that there were no deductions to make...I discover them when I have completed half the game)
-Hope for the best.

For answering questions:
Apply any new rules that the question presents --> See what deductions/previously stated rules it triggers --> Hope that's the answer.
I'm also trying to do some of the questions in my head, since drawing new boards/tables takes a bit of time. Any advice on this?

[mjsjr]

I've improved quite a bit on LR, and a tad on RC. However, for some reason I can't, for the life of me, improve my LG score. I know timing is my enemy when it comes to this section. I takes me 12-15 minutes to get through even the simplest of games. I can do 2 games per section, with a -0 to -2 score, but I seldom finish, or even start the third game. I have been studying for about 1.5 months. On my first PT, I couldn't even do one game. So, going from 0 games to 2 games is an improvement, but certainly not where I want to be come test day.
How long did it take you guys and gals to get to the point where you were completing all 4 games, with a -0 to -1 score?
Any tips?

Here is how I approach the games:
-Read the stimulus and rules.
-Figure out what kind of game it is.
-Set up my diagram/board/table, etc.
-Attempt to make deductions (I fail horribly at this, since I get flustered due to the time limit and feel like there aren't any to make - seldom do I find that there were no deductions to make...I discover them when I have completed half the game)
-Hope for the best.

For answering questions:
Apply any new rules that the question presents --> See what deductions/previously stated rules it triggers --> Hope that's the answer.
I'm also trying to do some of the questions in my head, since drawing new boards/tables takes a bit of time. Any advice on this?

Hi there! I'll take a crack at this since no one else has responded.

I've been scoring -0's on LG for sometime now. Maybe I can help.

How many LG sections/ how much material have you completed? To date, I've gone through the LG sections in PTs 1-49; I've redone the LG sections in 1-20 probably 3 times; and I've gone through the PowerScore LG bible twice, I think, and through other books once. The point is not to brag, but to question whether you've gone through an appropriate level of material. To be quite frank--and this is meant to help you, not hurt your feelings-- it seems like you may have a tougher time on LG than the average person on TLS.com. But that's fine if you are willing to put in more effort into your preparation. Have you put in enough effort?

Now, for some specific tips related to your comments:

Sometimes there aren't a ton of inferences to deduce, as I'm sure you're already aware of. So what does this mean? Get better at recognizing when the fact pattern isn't giving you enough information to make a lot of inferences. You can do this by just analyzing the rules and possibly taking a peak at some of the questions to see if many of them are supplying you with new information (so that there is then an inference to be made). I would say in general knowing when there is or is not inferences to be made comes with a lot of practice, and eventually you will trust yourself to move on to the questions without worrying about the fact that you missed something (besides, even if you did, it's not the end of the world).

Another thing that may help is if you take your time going through the fact pattern and rules. I'm sure you've heard that by spending a little more time upfront, you can speed through the questions easier; if you, for instance, go through the rules once, then go through them again to diagram them, then go through a third time to make sure you diagramed them correctly, you stand a much better chance at 1) remembering most of the rules and 2) stimulating your brain to recognize a previously unknown inference. Perhaps take some time to practice this technique on old sections. You can do it untimed at first so that you are sure you have it down to a somewhat automatic level. Then start trying to apply it to timed sections. Don't worry about going back over older sections and remembering crucial elements (so that it's not exactly a true representation of your ability); you're not, at this point, trying to see exactly how high you would score if you took the test today; you're trying to get better at LG, and redoing older sections is a great way to do that.

One more thing for now: I see that you mentioned you like to do certain questions in your head. I agree that drawing another diagram like the one you first made after reading the rules would be a bit cumbersome and misguided during a timed section. But trying to juggle a lot of information in your head may not be very helpful either, and many people are not good at doing it (though I think with practice you can get better). Instead, try making small, "skeleton" diagrams that are watered down versions of your initial diagram. Sometimes I end up making these abridged diagrams next to the majority of the questions. And because it's time consuming to do so, I started improving my ability to make them small and quick. For example, if my initial diagram has slots that 7 variables can go into, along with numbers designating each of those slots, not symbols suggesting that certain variables can't go into certain positions, and other rules and inferences, then my skeleton diagrams will probably only have 7 little dashes to fit the variables into and nothing else. So next to a question asking my to put variable A into position 6, I would have 7 tiny dashes next to the question with a happy, little A in the 6th position. I wouldn't include any of the other information I've, hopefully, already memorized because that would cost way too much time, like you said. Once I got good at this method, I could, if I absolutely needed to, make small, skeleton diagrams next to each answer choice of a tougher question. In summary, making additional, yet watered-down, versions of your initial diagram may be necessary for you to tackle certain questions accurately. And doing them in your head may cause you to be inefficient because you're either taking longer than you would if you made a simple, quick diagram, or because you're inaccurate when you do that, or both.

[ChinaCat]

It took me a long time to get good at logic games. Far longer than it took me to get good at the other sections. I was finally able to improve by using the 7sage method. After trying a new game, I would immediately watch the 7sage explanation video and print out several copies of the game. Then I would do the game over and over again until I could finish it at least as quickly as JY's suggested time. I think the key was not waiting to redo the game. I would do the game, check my answers, then pick up another copy and do it again. I usually did each game at least 5 times, sometimes 10 or more times, all in one sitting. For the most difficult games, I would print out additional copies and do them again later too.

[GospelLeague]

I start from -16 on LG to 0-1 now. I guess I could speak something on your behalf. LG has nothing to do with math and intelligence, which are some misconception before I started working on it. It is basically reading comprehension written in a weird way. You just read those rules and make inferences, and apply your inferences. So there is nothing new you have to learn.

At first I could finish only 2 games, and got only 2/3 of them right. Then I bought the Cambridge by type, and start drilling games by type, each time write out the way I crack the game, and then check 7sage to see how JY cracked it. Little by little, I'd say I used around 10 days, and then I had this moment of "epiphany", and missed 0-1 of each game, and way faster than before. I went on drilling the whole bundle for at least 5 times. And then, I started to take a full-section game, choosing from Type 1-38, at first untimed and gradually started timing myself. Now for some 40ish PT I can finish the whole LG section within 25 minutes and miss none. I do think the more recent games become a bit harder and more twisted, but LG never intimidates me now. I think it's the only time during the test that I could refresh my brain.

[kcho10]

I'm also scoring -0, at least usually.

I used Kaplan, so idk if my strategy will help you out much if you're using powerscore, but what REALLY helped me was noting inferences that I could have made, whether it was from the rules themselves or the hypotheticals introduced in the questions. I would simply jot them down in my notebook...then every few days or so I would read over those inferences, and work out hypothetical situations in my mind where these inferences could occur. When I was doing practice sections, those inferences just jumped out at me immediately without me even having to think about it. I was able to finish a lot of LG sections with plenty of time to spare because of it. But I also made sure to read slowly and check all the rules and internalize them before moving on to the questions. I hope this helps!

[MrSam]

I've improved quite a bit on LR, and a tad on RC. However, for some reason I can't, for the life of me, improve my LG score. I know timing is my enemy when it comes to this section. I takes me 12-15 minutes to get through even the simplest of games. I can do 2 games per section, with a -0 to -2 score, but I seldom finish, or even start the third game. I have been studying for about 1.5 months. On my first PT, I couldn't even do one game. So, going from 0 games to 2 games is an improvement, but certainly not where I want to be come test day.
How long did it take you guys and gals to get to the point where you were completing all 4 games, with a -0 to -1 score?
Any tips?

Here is how I approach the games:
-Read the stimulus and rules.
-Figure out what kind of game it is.
-Set up my diagram/board/table, etc.
-Attempt to make deductions (I fail horribly at this, since I get flustered due to the time limit and feel like there aren't any to make - seldom do I find that there were no deductions to make...I discover them when I have completed half the game)
-Hope for the best.

For answering questions:
Apply any new rules that the question presents --> See what deductions/previously stated rules it triggers --> Hope that's the answer.
I'm also trying to do some of the questions in my head, since drawing new boards/tables takes a bit of time. Any advice on this?

Hi there! I'll take a crack at this since no one else has responded.

I've been scoring -0's on LG for sometime now. Maybe I can help.

How many LG sections/ how much material have you completed? To date, I've gone through the LG sections in PTs 1-49; I've redone the LG sections in 1-20 probably 3 times; and I've gone through the PowerScore LG bible twice, I think, and through other books once. The point is not to brag, but to question whether you've gone through an appropriate level of material. To be quite frank--and this is meant to help you, not hurt your feelings-- it seems like you may have a tougher time on LG than the average person on TLS.com. But that's fine if you are willing to put in more effort into your preparation. Have you put in enough effort?

Now, for some specific tips related to your comments:

Sometimes there aren't a ton of inferences to deduce, as I'm sure you're already aware of. So what does this mean? Get better at recognizing when the fact pattern isn't giving you enough information to make a lot of inferences. You can do this by just analyzing the rules and possibly taking a peak at some of the questions to see if many of them are supplying you with new information (so that there is then an inference to be made). I would say in general knowing when there is or is not inferences to be made comes with a lot of practice, and eventually you will trust yourself to move on to the questions without worrying about the fact that you missed something (besides, even if you did, it's not the end of the world).

Another thing that may help is if you take your time going through the fact pattern and rules. I'm sure you've heard that by spending a little more time upfront, you can speed through the questions easier; if you, for instance, go through the rules once, then go through them again to diagram them, then go through a third time to make sure you diagramed them correctly, you stand a much better chance at 1) remembering most of the rules and 2) stimulating your brain to recognize a previously unknown inference. Perhaps take some time to practice this technique on old sections. You can do it untimed at first so that you are sure you have it down to a somewhat automatic level. Then start trying to apply it to timed sections. Don't worry about going back over older sections and remembering crucial elements (so that it's not exactly a true representation of your ability); you're not, at this point, trying to see exactly how high you would score if you took the test today; you're trying to get better at LG, and redoing older sections is a great way to do that.

One more thing for now: I see that you mentioned you like to do certain questions in your head. I agree that drawing another diagram like the one you first made after reading the rules would be a bit cumbersome and misguided during a timed section. But trying to juggle a lot of information in your head may not be very helpful either, and many people are not good at doing it (though I think with practice you can get better). Instead, try making small, "skeleton" diagrams that are watered down versions of your initial diagram. Sometimes I end up making these abridged diagrams next to the majority of the questions. And because it's time consuming to do so, I started improving my ability to make them small and quick. For example, if my initial diagram has slots that 7 variables can go into, along with numbers designating each of those slots, not symbols suggesting that certain variables can't go into certain positions, and other rules and inferences, then my skeleton diagrams will probably only have 7 little dashes to fit the variables into and nothing else. So next to a question asking my to put variable A into position 6, I would have 7 tiny dashes next to the question with a happy, little A in the 6th position. I wouldn't include any of the other information I've, hopefully, already memorized because that would cost way too much time, like you said. Once I got good at this method, I could, if I absolutely needed to, make small, skeleton diagrams next to each answer choice of a tougher question. In summary, making additional, yet watered-down, versions of your initial diagram may be necessary for you to tackle certain questions accurately. And doing them in your head may cause you to be inefficient because you're either taking longer than you would if you made a simple, quick diagram, or because you're inaccurate when you do that, or both.

Hi mjsjr,

First off, thank you for taking the time to type out all of that, it's actually proven quite helpful!
The truth is, I've only gone through what Testmasters has assigned over the past 1.5 months. I would say maybe 50 total games. I've yet to repeat a game, but have been advised to do so by multiple people. Many people have told me that LGs come naturally to them, I am certainly not among that crowd. So, I would agree, I probably do have a tougher time on LGs than the average TLSer. I am certain now that my inability to make quick inferences stems from the fact that I haven't had a lot of practice, compared to others of course.

Regarding your second point. I have tried taking more time upfront, but I always end up getting flustered and saying to myself "you're wasting time, there's probably nothing more to infer/deduce! Get to the questions you fool!!" I'll have to try your approach tomorrow morning.

Great advice, regarding the skeleton diagrams. I actually tried it during the last game. It worked out well, until my OCD kicked in and I started labeling the diagram (e.g 1-7) for no apparent reason. I knew that I could differentiate between the slots, without any identifying markers, but felt the need to add them anyways. I think this is something that I just have to get over. I've always been meticulous with my diagrams, clearly, to a fault.

Anyhow, I do appreciate the advice, i'll implement it the next time I tackle LG (first thing in the AM) and will let you know how it goes. Out of curiousity, how long did it take you to get to where you are now? And, where did you start? That is, if you don't mind my asking!

[MrSam]

It took me a long time to get good at logic games. Far longer than it took me to get good at the other sections. I was finally able to improve by using the 7sage method. After trying a new game, I would immediately watch the 7sage explanation video and print out several copies of the game. Then I would do the game over and over again until I could finish it at least as quickly as JY's suggested time. I think the key was not waiting to redo the game. I would do the game, check my answers, then pick up another copy and do it again. I usually did each game at least 5 times, sometimes 10 or more times, all in one sitting. For the most difficult games, I would print out additional copies and do them again later too.

I'll have to redo the games a few times. A friend of mine, who was recently admitted to Stanford mentioned that she used this technique to boost her LG score. Are you able to print multiple copies of the games because you purchased them online? I'll probably have to photocopy each individual game from the books that I have.

[MrSam]

I start from -16 on LG to 0-1 now. I guess I could speak something on your behalf. LG has nothing to do with math and intelligence, which are some misconception before I started working on it. It is basically reading comprehension written in a weird way. You just read those rules and make inferences, and apply your inferences. So there is nothing new you have to learn.

At first I could finish only 2 games, and got only 2/3 of them right. Then I bought the Cambridge by type, and start drilling games by type, each time write out the way I crack the game, and then check 7sage to see how JY cracked it. Little by little, I'd say I used around 10 days, and then I had this moment of "epiphany", and missed 0-1 of each game, and way faster than before. I went on drilling the whole bundle for at least 5 times. And then, I started to take a full-section game, choosing from Type 1-38, at first untimed and gradually started timing myself. Now for some 40ish PT I can finish the whole LG section within 25 minutes and miss none. I do think the more recent games become a bit harder and more twisted, but LG never intimidates me now. I think it's the only time during the test that I could refresh my brain.

Thanks GoseplLeague,
This seems to be the advice that I am getting from most people. How long did it take you to get to where you are now? Did you do 10 a day + redos, or were you totaling 10 a day including the redos?

[MrSam]

I'm also scoring -0, at least usually.

I used Kaplan, so idk if my strategy will help you out much if you're using powerscore, but what REALLY helped me was noting inferences that I could have made, whether it was from the rules themselves or the hypotheticals introduced in the questions. I would simply jot them down in my notebook...then every few days or so I would read over those inferences, and work out hypothetical situations in my mind where these inferences could occur. When I was doing practice sections, those inferences just jumped out at me immediately without me even having to think about it. I was able to finish a lot of LG sections with plenty of time to spare because of it. But I also made sure to read slowly and check all the rules and internalize them before moving on to the questions. I hope this helps!

This is exactly where I want to be. I am approaching them the same way that you are, but rarely go back to read the notes. I'll give that a shot and see how it goes. Now, to actually find all of those notes (I write the notes on each individual game).

[mist4bison]

I wasn't a fan of how Testmasters did games at all. Id suggest grabbing the power score bible and reading through. when you're drilling, do one game, watch the corresponding 7sage video, and redo the game.

[MrSam]

I wasn't a fan of how Testmasters did games at all. Id suggest grabbing the power score bible and reading through. when you're drilling, do one game, watch the corresponding 7sage video, and redo the game.

Good idea. I suppose attempting the game, using a skill set that isn't working for me isn't the wisest thing. I have the PS Bible, so I'll continue reading that tomorrow. Would you recommend it over the Trainer for LG?

[mist4bison]

I wasn't a fan of how Testmasters did games at all. Id suggest grabbing the power score bible and reading through. when you're drilling, do one game, watch the corresponding 7sage video, and redo the game.

Good idea. I suppose attempting the game, using a skill set that isn't working for me isn't the wisest thing. I have the PS Bible, so I'll continue reading that tomorrow. Would you recommend it over the Trainer for LG?

I used both, PS LR and LG bibles first and then the Trainer. While I felt that the Trainer helped me substantially with LR, I didn't feel that it did much more for me with LG. I think the PSB is by far the best option for LG, personally. I started with getting about half of the questions in a section wrong and after drilling all of the games, doing 7sage videos, and redrilling, I was able to go -0 and finish LG sections in ~20-25 minutes on average. It took me maybe 3 weeks of really focusing on LG to get to that point.

[kcho10]

I'm also scoring -0, at least usually.

I used Kaplan, so idk if my strategy will help you out much if you're using powerscore, but what REALLY helped me was noting inferences that I could have made, whether it was from the rules themselves or the hypotheticals introduced in the questions. I would simply jot them down in my notebook...then every few days or so I would read over those inferences, and work out hypothetical situations in my mind where these inferences could occur. When I was doing practice sections, those inferences just jumped out at me immediately without me even having to think about it. I was able to finish a lot of LG sections with plenty of time to spare because of it. But I also made sure to read slowly and check all the rules and internalize them before moving on to the questions. I hope this helps!

This is exactly where I want to be. I am approaching them the same way that you are, but rarely go back to read the notes. I'll give that a shot and see how it goes. Now, to actually find all of those notes (I write the notes on each individual game).

Awesome, best of luck to you. I found it helpful to have the inferences all in one place, so that I don't have to go through each game in order to find the common inferences I was missing. Btw, I know companies like 7 sage recommend doing the same game over and over again 5+ times in one sitting, but for me that just made me memorize the game rather than the inferences themselves, which of course is much more important. So I would actually spread out my games so I could approach the game as if it were a game I had never seen before. I would do 3 games of a specific type, mark the ones I had trouble with, and redo them a day or two later after noting all the relevant inferences.

[mjsjr]

Hi mjsjr,

First off, thank you for taking the time to type out all of that, it's actually proven quite helpful!
The truth is, I've only gone through what Testmasters has assigned over the past 1.5 months. I would say maybe 50 total games. I've yet to repeat a game, but have been advised to do so by multiple people. Many people have told me that LGs come naturally to them, I am certainly not among that crowd. So, I would agree, I probably do have a tougher time on LGs than the average TLSer. I am certain now that my inability to make quick inferences stems from the fact that I haven't had a lot of practice, compared to others of course.

Regarding your second point. I have tried taking more time upfront, but I always end up getting flustered and saying to myself "you're wasting time, there's probably nothing more to infer/deduce! Get to the questions you fool!!" I'll have to try your approach tomorrow morning.

Great advice, regarding the skeleton diagrams. I actually tried it during the last game. It worked out well, until my OCD kicked in and I started labeling the diagram (e.g 1-7) for no apparent reason. I knew that I could differentiate between the slots, without any identifying markers, but felt the need to add them anyways. I think this is something that I just have to get over. I've always been meticulous with my diagrams, clearly, to a fault.

Anyhow, I do appreciate the advice, i'll implement it the next time I tackle LG (first thing in the AM) and will let you know how it goes. Out of curiousity, how long did it take you to get to where you are now? And, where did you start? That is, if you don't mind my asking!

No problem!

Actually, when I first started learning about the LSAT, I also used Testmasters. I still have all of the books from when I originally signed up with them. I remember them being decent. But I know I improved WAY more working on my own with the PowerScore bibles and the Manhattan series. For me, the problem with Testmasters probably wasn't anything significantly wrong with their methods; instead, I developed this bad habit of thinking "if I just do the work Testmasters is assigning me, then I'll get better," which led to me just "going through the motions" without any real improvement. I was so focused on just completing the assignments they gave me that I didn't develop a true understanding of the material--which resulted in a "hey, what the hell--why haven't I improved now that I'm done with all of these homeworks?"-moment. Obviously, this doesn't have to be the case with everyone else, or anyone else, for that matter, but that's what happened with me.

Regardless of my own mistakes mentioned above, the PowerScore and Manhattan series are excellent, and they are very thorough. You will not regret investing in their books if you do. In fact, I have over 10 LSAT books from different companies; I do not regret buying a single one of them. Does anyone ever say "Gosh, I wish I wouldn't have investigated this other option for potential improvement?"

In response to your comments:

I know exactly what you mean; the timing aspect for the LSAT still makes me rush through certain sections and it's something I'm just now starting to improve on. I remember doing LG when I first started. I was like a hyped up german shepherd being agitated before a drug raid; I would abandon the rules and try to get to the questions as soon as I could. This was almost ALWAYS a mistake. Anyhow, it sounds like you are open to try out slowing down, so I won't really say any more about it.

To answer your question about how long it took me to get where I am now, I looked back at some of my very first PTs (oh my). I got a -7 on LG (157 for the test). After that there was another test where I freaked out and tried skipping a game and coming back to it (-9 on that LG and a 157 for the test). But then after I settled down it was pretty much smooth sailing from there. I went through the PowerScore bible one time at that point and things just started to click. The next test I took I missed 3 on LG and then started missing none very soon after that. But there was a decent amount of methodological work in between. So, all in all, I would say about a month of moderate studying. I was working part-time and enjoy other things besides the LSAT, so I wasn't studying like a madman. I would freak out on LG when I first started (something I still sometimes do on other sections, and something which ALWAYS really hurts my performance), but once I started relaxing and relying on the methods, things went much more smoothly. I know that sounds easier said than done, but I think you can get there with practice.

[GospelLeague]

I start from -16 on LG to 0-1 now. I guess I could speak something on your behalf. LG has nothing to do with math and intelligence, which are some misconception before I started working on it. It is basically reading comprehension written in a weird way. You just read those rules and make inferences, and apply your inferences. So there is nothing new you have to learn.

At first I could finish only 2 games, and got only 2/3 of them right. Then I bought the Cambridge by type, and start drilling games by type, each time write out the way I crack the game, and then check 7sage to see how JY cracked it. Little by little, I'd say I used around 10 days, and then I had this moment of "epiphany", and missed 0-1 of each game, and way faster than before. I went on drilling the whole bundle for at least 5 times. And then, I started to take a full-section game, choosing from Type 1-38, at first untimed and gradually started timing myself. Now for some 40ish PT I can finish the whole LG section within 25 minutes and miss none. I do think the more recent games become a bit harder and more twisted, but LG never intimidates me now. I think it's the only time during the test that I could refresh my brain.

Thanks GoseplLeague,
This seems to be the advice that I am getting from most people. How long did it take you to get to where you are now? Did you do 10 a day + redos, or were you totaling 10 a day including the redos?

At first I did one type per day, and then I singled out the LG sections in 1-38 and did them under timed conditions multiple times.

[MrSam]

I wasn't a fan of how Testmasters did games at all. Id suggest grabbing the power score bible and reading through. when you're drilling, do one game, watch the corresponding 7sage video, and redo the game.

Good idea. I suppose attempting the game, using a skill set that isn't working for me isn't the wisest thing. I have the PS Bible, so I'll continue reading that tomorrow. Would you recommend it over the Trainer for LG?

I used both, PS LR and LG bibles first and then the Trainer. While I felt that the Trainer helped me substantially with LR, I didn't feel that it did much more for me with LG. I think the PSB is by far the best option for LG, personally. I started with getting about half of the questions in a section wrong and after drilling all of the games, doing 7sage videos, and redrilling, I was able to go -0 and finish LG sections in ~20-25 minutes on average. It took me maybe 3 weeks of really focusing on LG to get to that point.

Thanks again! That's great to hear. I had initially planned on taking the LSAT in October, but considering how far away I am from my needed score, I'll probably delay it until December. Hopefully that'll give me enough time to nail down logical games. I'll check out the 7Sage videos again.

[MrSam]

I'm also scoring -0, at least usually.

I used Kaplan, so idk if my strategy will help you out much if you're using powerscore, but what REALLY helped me was noting inferences that I could have made, whether it was from the rules themselves or the hypotheticals introduced in the questions. I would simply jot them down in my notebook...then every few days or so I would read over those inferences, and work out hypothetical situations in my mind where these inferences could occur. When I was doing practice sections, those inferences just jumped out at me immediately without me even having to think about it. I was able to finish a lot of LG sections with plenty of time to spare because of it. But I also made sure to read slowly and check all the rules and internalize them before moving on to the questions. I hope this helps!

This is exactly where I want to be. I am approaching them the same way that you are, but rarely go back to read the notes. I'll give that a shot and see how it goes. Now, to actually find all of those notes (I write the notes on each individual game).

Awesome, best of luck to you. I found it helpful to have the inferences all in one place, so that I don't have to go through each game in order to find the common inferences I was missing. Btw, I know companies like 7 sage recommend doing the same game over and over again 5+ times in one sitting, but for me that just made me memorize the game rather than the inferences themselves, which of course is much more important. So I would actually spread out my games so I could approach the game as if it were a game I had never seen before. I would do 3 games of a specific type, mark the ones I had trouble with, and redo them a day or two later after noting all the relevant inferences.

Thanks a ton! I was worried about that as well. I made a schedule this morning, instead of doing the games back to back, I will be doing each game twice, then reattempting it 3-4 days later. It sounds similar to your methodology - which makes perfect sense, since memorizing the game itself is not indicative of whether or not you've actually learned to make the proper inferences. 7Sage's videos have been extremely helpful. I'll start jotting down my inferences in a notebook to keep better track of them, thanks again for the advice.

[MrSam]

I start from -16 on LG to 0-1 now. I guess I could speak something on your behalf. LG has nothing to do with math and intelligence, which are some misconception before I started working on it. It is basically reading comprehension written in a weird way. You just read those rules and make inferences, and apply your inferences. So there is nothing new you have to learn.

At first I could finish only 2 games, and got only 2/3 of them right. Then I bought the Cambridge by type, and start drilling games by type, each time write out the way I crack the game, and then check 7sage to see how JY cracked it. Little by little, I'd say I used around 10 days, and then I had this moment of "epiphany", and missed 0-1 of each game, and way faster than before. I went on drilling the whole bundle for at least 5 times. And then, I started to take a full-section game, choosing from Type 1-38, at first untimed and gradually started timing myself. Now for some 40ish PT I can finish the whole LG section within 25 minutes and miss none. I do think the more recent games become a bit harder and more twisted, but LG never intimidates me now. I think it's the only time during the test that I could refresh my brain.

Thanks GoseplLeague,
This seems to be the advice that I am getting from most people. How long did it take you to get to where you are now? Did you do 10 a day + redos, or were you totaling 10 a day including the redos?

At first I did one type per day, and then I singled out the LG sections in 1-38 and did them under timed conditions multiple times.

That seems like the most effective way to approach the games. I'm following TMs system, where they divide the games into parts, then offer a section where they randomize the games. I am now repeating some of the ones I did when I first started the course. Hopefully that helps.

[MrSam]

Hi mjsjr,

First off, thank you for taking the time to type out all of that, it's actually proven quite helpful!
The truth is, I've only gone through what Testmasters has assigned over the past 1.5 months. I would say maybe 50 total games. I've yet to repeat a game, but have been advised to do so by multiple people. Many people have told me that LGs come naturally to them, I am certainly not among that crowd. So, I would agree, I probably do have a tougher time on LGs than the average TLSer. I am certain now that my inability to make quick inferences stems from the fact that I haven't had a lot of practice, compared to others of course.

Regarding your second point. I have tried taking more time upfront, but I always end up getting flustered and saying to myself "you're wasting time, there's probably nothing more to infer/deduce! Get to the questions you fool!!" I'll have to try your approach tomorrow morning.

Great advice, regarding the skeleton diagrams. I actually tried it during the last game. It worked out well, until my OCD kicked in and I started labeling the diagram (e.g 1-7) for no apparent reason. I knew that I could differentiate between the slots, without any identifying markers, but felt the need to add them anyways. I think this is something that I just have to get over. I've always been meticulous with my diagrams, clearly, to a fault.

Anyhow, I do appreciate the advice, i'll implement it the next time I tackle LG (first thing in the AM) and will let you know how it goes. Out of curiousity, how long did it take you to get to where you are now? And, where did you start? That is, if you don't mind my asking!

No problem!

Actually, when I first started learning about the LSAT, I also used Testmasters. I still have all of the books from when I originally signed up with them. I remember them being decent. But I know I improved WAY more working on my own with the PowerScore bibles and the Manhattan series. For me, the problem with Testmasters probably wasn't anything significantly wrong with their methods; instead, I developed this bad habit of thinking "if I just do the work Testmasters is assigning me, then I'll get better," which led to me just "going through the motions" without any real improvement. I was so focused on just completing the assignments they gave me that I didn't develop a true understanding of the material--which resulted in a "hey, what the hell--why haven't I improved now that I'm done with all of these homeworks?"-moment. Obviously, this doesn't have to be the case with everyone else, or anyone else, for that matter, but that's what happened with me.

Regardless of my own mistakes mentioned above, the PowerScore and Manhattan series are excellent, and they are very thorough. You will not regret investing in their books if you do. In fact, I have over 10 LSAT books from different companies; I do not regret buying a single one of them. Does anyone ever say "Gosh, I wish I wouldn't have investigated this other option for potential improvement?"

In response to your comments:

I know exactly what you mean; the timing aspect for the LSAT still makes me rush through certain sections and it's something I'm just now starting to improve on. I remember doing LG when I first started. I was like a hyped up german shepherd being agitated before a drug raid; I would abandon the rules and try to get to the questions as soon as I could. This was almost ALWAYS a mistake. Anyhow, it sounds like you are open to try out slowing down, so I won't really say any more about it.

To answer your question about how long it took me to get where I am now, I looked back at some of my very first PTs (oh my). I got a -7 on LG (157 for the test). After that there was another test where I freaked out and tried skipping a game and coming back to it (-9 on that LG and a 157 for the test). But then after I settled down it was pretty much smooth sailing from there. I went through the PowerScore bible one time at that point and things just started to click. The next test I took I missed 3 on LG and then started missing none very soon after that. But there was a decent amount of methodological work in between. So, all in all, I would say about a month of moderate studying. I was working part-time and enjoy other things besides the LSAT, so I wasn't studying like a madman. I would freak out on LG when I first started (something I still sometimes do on other sections, and something which ALWAYS really hurts my performance), but once I started relaxing and relying on the methods, things went much more smoothly. I know that sounds easier said than done, but I think you can get there with practice.

Very good point. I find myself reading, randomly through some of the books - if something does it make sense it one, maybe one of the others will offer clarification.
In regard to Testmasters, I couldn't agree more. The program is nice, but it seems like the place an emphasis on pelting students with homework. That tends to put me in the same mindset as yourself, "All I need to do to succeed is aggressively attack the homework!" Clearly, that's not the case.

I'll have to check out the Manhattan series. Thus far, I've skipped around both the Bibles and the Trainer. The Bibles have proven extremely helpful.
I'll certainly try the slow down and analyze approach. After all, I can't possibly see anyone making huge deductions if they are rushing to the questions, without giving the rules a quick second glance.

I actually laughed a bit, reading your comments about your experience with LG - not at you, but because that's exactly how I started, and for the most part, how I am now! I think my problem is that I sometimes doubt the methods - those offered by Testmasters. Again, they're a great company, so maybe their methods aren't working for me. I'll spend the next two weeks going through the LG Bible. I have 3 months until the LSAT, so that should give me plenty of time - I would love to take the October test, but considering where I am scoring now, doing so would be unwise.

Anyhow, thanks again, mjsjr. Your advice has been really helpful!

[mjsjr]

Anyhow, thanks again, mjsjr. Your advice has been really helpful!

Of course! Good luck to you

[GospelLeague]

I start from -16 on LG to 0-1 now. I guess I could speak something on your behalf. LG has nothing to do with math and intelligence, which are some misconception before I started working on it. It is basically reading comprehension written in a weird way. You just read those rules and make inferences, and apply your inferences. So there is nothing new you have to learn.

At first I could finish only 2 games, and got only 2/3 of them right. Then I bought the Cambridge by type, and start drilling games by type, each time write out the way I crack the game, and then check 7sage to see how JY cracked it. Little by little, I'd say I used around 10 days, and then I had this moment of "epiphany", and missed 0-1 of each game, and way faster than before. I went on drilling the whole bundle for at least 5 times. And then, I started to take a full-section game, choosing from Type 1-38, at first untimed and gradually started timing myself. Now for some 40ish PT I can finish the whole LG section within 25 minutes and miss none. I do think the more recent games become a bit harder and more twisted, but LG never intimidates me now. I think it's the only time during the test that I could refresh my brain.

Thanks GoseplLeague,
This seems to be the advice that I am getting from most people. How long did it take you to get to where you are now? Did you do 10 a day + redos, or were you totaling 10 a day including the redos?

At first I did one type per day, and then I singled out the LG sections in 1-38 and did them under timed conditions multiple times.

That seems like the most effective way to approach the games. I'm following TMs system, where they divide the games into parts, then offer a section where they randomize the games. I am now repeating some of the ones I did when I first started the course. Hopefully that helps.

I took TM too. I have to say their games are a bit disorganized, but the way they work on the killer games do help me. Spend more time on the setup.

[MrSam]

I start from -16 on LG to 0-1 now. I guess I could speak something on your behalf. LG has nothing to do with math and intelligence, which are some misconception before I started working on it. It is basically reading comprehension written in a weird way. You just read those rules and make inferences, and apply your inferences. So there is nothing new you have to learn.

At first I could finish only 2 games, and got only 2/3 of them right. Then I bought the Cambridge by type, and start drilling games by type, each time write out the way I crack the game, and then check 7sage to see how JY cracked it. Little by little, I'd say I used around 10 days, and then I had this moment of "epiphany", and missed 0-1 of each game, and way faster than before. I went on drilling the whole bundle for at least 5 times. And then, I started to take a full-section game, choosing from Type 1-38, at first untimed and gradually started timing myself. Now for some 40ish PT I can finish the whole LG section within 25 minutes and miss none. I do think the more recent games become a bit harder and more twisted, but LG never intimidates me now. I think it's the only time during the test that I could refresh my brain.

Thanks GoseplLeague,
This seems to be the advice that I am getting from most people. How long did it take you to get to where you are now? Did you do 10 a day + redos, or were you totaling 10 a day including the redos?

At first I did one type per day, and then I singled out the LG sections in 1-38 and did them under timed conditions multiple times.

That seems like the most effective way to approach the games. I'm following TMs system, where they divide the games into parts, then offer a section where they randomize the games. I am now repeating some of the ones I did when I first started the course. Hopefully that helps.

I took TM too. I have to say their games are a bit disorganized, but the way they work on the killer games do help me. Spend more time on the setup.

What do you mean by the "killer games"? Are you referring to the relatively difficult games? If that's what you meant, then I can certainly agree. I did notice that they take a more "simpler said than done" approach - often, their deductions are ones that they probably took some time to make, yet they make it look like they saw them instantly...then again, that could just be me.

[MrSam]

Anyhow, thanks again, mjsjr. Your advice has been really helpful!

Of course! Good luck to you

Thanks! Likewise (assuming you haven't taken the LSAT, that is. If you have, then I hope you did well!)