Struggling with LG, doing well on other sections Forum

[dontsaywhatyoumean]

Hello,

So I'm getting about 2-3 wrong on each LR section, and 0-3 wrong on RC, but somehow struggling on the LG section, despite having spent BY FAR the most of my study time on it.

I can answer 3 games and get 0-3 wrong over those 3 games, but that's it. No chance at even answering the first question of the fourth game. It seems like my problem is drawing incorrect game boards, and not recognizing rules that I originally wrote when first setting up my game board.

Sometimes I can only answer 2 games (about a 3rd of the time)

I've been studying the games for a couple of months now, and I'm still just so slow and making stupid mistakes, or being completely lost on how I should be going about drawing the game board. I feel like because the LR (and possibly to a lesser extent, the RC section) came fairly quickly, that the "most easily learned" section should be a lot easier than it has been so far. Conditional logic is good.

What I am slightly confused by is that sometimes I'll watch a 7sage video, and he'll say that this game is easy, and I agree with him (after seeing how he sets it up), but what he calls a 5 minute game might take me 10-12 minutes. On the other hand, sometimes he'll call a game difficult and I'll finish it in as much time, or a little less time than he suggests. It seems perhaps that the things ailing me are not necessarily the most common problems that other students have. I'm not certain.

The CD game for example (PT31), he said was notoriously difficult, but it was one of the easier games I've done. While it took me a bit longer, I managed to do it in 13 minutes (before watching his video). I think I found it fairly easy because the game board was so easy to set up.

My plan as it stands is to skip the 4th game, although as it stands, I may even need to skip the 3rd game.

Can anyone help me drill down to what specifically is giving me so much trouble and how I can improve?

General tips on this section?

Thanks

[BizBro]

Your messing up on diagraming the setup. Once you have a perfect set up, the answers fall into place. Shouldn't be taking you so long to do the games. Read manhattan LSAT and drill, drill, drill, LG packets and watch 7 sage.

[stig2014]

Hello,

So I'm getting about 2-3 wrong on each LR section, and 0-3 wrong on RC, but somehow struggling on the LG section, despite having spent most of my study time on it (by far the most, not even close really).

I can answer 3 games and get 0-3 wrong over those 3 games, but that's it. No chance at even answering the first question of the fourth game. It seems like my problem is drawing incorrect game boards, and not recognizing rules that I originally wrote when first setting up my game board.

My performance varies extremely though. Sometimes I can only answer 2 games because I drew an incorrect game board, or forgot to refer to some rule that I drew, etc.

My conditional logic is good, I also don't even diagram on any of the LR questions, but I've been studying the games for a couple of months now, and I'm still just so slow and making stupid mistakes, or being completely lost on how I should be going about drawing the game board. I feel like because the LR (and possibly to a lesser extent, the RC section) came fairly quickly, that the "most easily learned" section should be a lot easier than it has been so far. To be fair though, I did originally only get 1 question correct on my diagnostic, so I suppose on a percentage basis it did show the most improvement after practicing it.

What I am slightly confused by is that sometimes I'll watch a 7sage video, and he'll say that this game is easy, and I can see why he'd say that, and I agree with him (after seeing how he sets it up), but what he calls a 5 minute game might take me 10-12 minutes. On the other hand, sometimes he'll call a game difficult and I'll finish it in as much time, or a little less time than he suggests. It seems perhaps that the things ailing me are not necessarily the most common problems that other students have. I'm not certain.

The CD game for example (PT31), he said was notoriously difficult, but it was one of the easier games I've done. While it took me a bit longer, I managed to do it in 13 minutes (before watching his video). I think I found it fairly easy because the game board was so easy to set up. I tried that Datalog game (the one that is supposed to be pretty hard), and did awfully, I was completely lost on how to set the game up. I answered one question and got it wrong.

My plan as it stands is to skip the 4th game. But I'm worried because of the fact that sometimes (a minority, but maybe about a 3rd of the time) I am only able to answer 2 of the games.

Can anyone help me drill down to what specifically is giving me so much trouble and how I can improve?

General tips on this section?

Thanks

I noticed you said that you've watched 7Sage videos, but have you tried this method? It has worked for me and countless others. http://7sage.com/how-to-get-a-perfect-s ... gic-games/

It sounds like most of your issues arise from timing. Go through the 7Sage method, get used to setting up games like JY. Maybe read through the Powerscore LG Bible if you haven't done so/need a refresher. Speed will come once you have the fundamentals down. Don't settle for only getting through 3 games. LG's can get to the point of being like free throws; stay diligent and don't settle for less than perfection. It's possible, even for those who don't think they can do it. Best of luck!

EDIT: Also want to second the above post about the importance of diagramming. This is the key to the entire game. And regarding misrepresenting rules: once you've read through and written them down go back and double check them. Seems counterintuitive to speed, but it will eventually make you faster and eliminate stupid mistakes.

[dontsaywhatyoumean]

I've only been redoing the questions I get wrong. I have read the entire PS LG bible and found it very useful.

I'll start redoing the entire games. Only a handful of times have I found a game's answers really "fall into place". Most of the time it really feels like a struggle.


Do you guys agree that roughly half of the time on each game, the majority of the time, should be spent setting up the game?

[stig2014]

I've only been redoing the questions I get wrong. I have read the entire PS LG bible and found it very useful.

I'll start redoing the entire games. Only a handful of times have I found a game's answers really "fall into place". Most of the time it really feels like a struggle.


Do you guys agree that roughly half of the time on each game, the majority of the time, should be spent setting up the game?

I think redoing the entire game will be helpful. This should help you see how important diagramming is. Sometimes your diagram can hurt you on one or two questions and you can get away with it on other questions.

Definitely agree with the roughly half time.

[sjp200]

I think always ask yourself what limits your game. In Grouping games, you often find pairs are limited to one or two groups and then more inferences push from there. Almost every game has one rule that drives the other inferences. Focus on what is limiting and you'll start recognizing patterns to see how those work and you'll identify them faster. Eventually you'll push your rules together quickly and have a fully functioning board that cleans many of the hardest games in only 8 minutes

[ltowns1]

I think always ask yourself what limits your game. In Grouping games, you often find pairs are limited to one or two groups and then more inferences push from there. Almost every game has one rule that drives the other inferences. Focus on what is limiting and you'll start recognizing patterns to see how those work and you'll identify them faster. Eventually you'll push your rules together quickly and have a fully functioning board that cleans many of the hardest games in only 8 minutes

I THINK THIS IS KEY TO UNDERSTAND logic games. I think a lot of people take this piece of advice for granted, and it's somehing that doesn't seem to be expressed as much as it should be in the way that sjp200 said. Find the RULE that has the biggest impact/most limited on the game, and then combine that rule with another rule. You should come up with some inferences that heavily impact the game. Full disclosure, I've struggled with logic games, and I'm still in the battle now. However, this is something I'm just realizing in the past few days of my study.

[Clearly]

Consider taking the velocity lsat course online, for a few hundred bucks that program is a steal and in my opinion the best approach to games, and I'm someone who was just awful at games myself.

[dontsaywhatyoumean]

How do you guys decide when you've spent enough time figuring out if there is an inference, or if you've discovered all of the inferences, before starting on any of the questions?

I notice often that I only notice a major inference in a game when I'm answering a question.


As well, for global questions, how often do you draw hypotheticals? Should my first strategy be to analyze my diagram and try to answer it that way, and then draw hypotheticals if necessary?

[sjp200]

How do you guys decide when you've spent enough time figuring out if there is an inference, or if you've discovered all of the inferences, before starting on any of the questions?

I notice often that I only notice a major inference in a game when I'm answering a question.


As well, for global questions, how often do you draw hypotheticals? Should my first strategy be to analyze my diagram and try to answer it that way, and then draw hypotheticals if necessary?

Don't be afraid to spend time up front. Once you get familiar with games you should be able to start seeing if you have a lot of possibilities or maybe you're really limited and want to spend some time figuring out all possibilities. Any time you see an item or pair is limited to one or two spots, take a glance to see how more rules play out, and then attack questions if it looks like you're done

[dontsaywhatyoumean]

Thanks for your post. I'm trying to spend more time up front now. I'm wondering if I got into a bad habit of rushing through (typically I've spent max a quarter of my time on the set up), and I haven't learned how to set my games up due to this. I almost never make inferences, but when I was doing the games in the PS Bible (untimed) I would make many more inferences. Maybe the speed concern now that I'm timing myself is what has caused me to get out of the habit of making inferences up front, and is now making it harder even with more time.

I thought that maybe the Bible just chose games with more up front inferences, and that was why I noticed I was making a lot more while going through the Bible. If I had to guess, I'd suppose that was incorrect? Is that accurate?

Is it more common to find grouping games easier than linear games? Do you guys typically use tables than just lines for grouping games? I realize this varies depending on the game.

As well, I find "complex" (two lines) linear games easier, as there seem to be more restrictions.

It seems like these "simple" linear games with only one line seem to give me a lot of trouble. They seem so open ended. In these types of games are the inferences often ones where you combine a number of pieces that prevent others from going in certain places, or vice versa? Blocks for example.

[sjp200]

Is it more common to find grouping games easier than linear games? Do you guys typically use tables than just lines for grouping games? I realize this varies depending on the game.

As well, I find "complex" (two lines) linear games easier, as there seem to be more restrictions.

It seems like these "simple" linear games with only one line seem to give me a lot of trouble. They seem so open ended. In these types of games are the inferences often ones where you combine a number of pieces that prevent others from going in certain places, or vice versa? Blocks for example.

Depends on the person. Usually linear games are easier but not necessarily.

Tables are used more when there is are only a few elements used repeatedly in different categories or groups. Tables are nice when you need a quick relation between the elements placed in groups either down a group or across multiple groups. More often lines are used, especially with 1-1 placements.

Simple sequencing games are easy if there are relative sequencing rules that all or mostly chain together. Always combine your rules if possible in sequencing. In very difficult one layer sequencing games, there will be multiple types of elements you are ordering. Usually in this case, there is one category (often a single element in its own category) that drives this game or determines how other elements can be placed

[dontsaywhatyoumean]

Do you find that grouping games have fewer inferences than linear games? Or is there no significant difference?

[sjp200]

I never really found a difference. The amount of influential inferences changes with the difficulty of the game. I personally did not benefit from reading the LG Bible. 7sage videos helped tremendously. Timing on games is more per section than per game. Usually you'll run 5-8-12-10ish on a section in order from first to last. Avoid using late PT's to learn games so that you can use them to gauge results. Games have the most bias after being retaken and the least helpful review except when first trying to learn the concept in general.

7sage conveniently sorts games by type and difficulty for you so I'd recommend starting with some easier ones in each category from early tests, trying to finish them, and then watching the videos regardless of your performance. After doing this move on to harder games from early tests, repeat until you've done almost every game from PT 1-20. Then try a section or two from PT's 20-40, identify strengths and weaknesses. Do the same as before, adjusting to your weaknesses. Finish these, then hit some 40-60 sections where you should be doing pretty well. Save 60+, for full tests. Revisit any games you found particularly challenging from before and watch the videos. This is not how I went from - 10 to - 1ish but I should've done it this way. Inferences come with playing with elements and rules up front before questions. As soon as I see a very restrictive rule, I circle it also

This will take time and patience, but you will find yourself improving.

[ltowns1]

I never really found a difference. The amount of influential inferences changes with the difficulty of the game. I personally did not benefit from reading the LG Bible. 7sage videos helped tremendously. Timing on games is more per section than per game. Usually you'll run 5-8-12-10ish on a section in order from first to last. Avoid using late PT's to learn games so that you can use them to gauge results. Games have the most bias after being retaken and the least helpful review except when first trying to learn the concept in general.

7sage conveniently sorts games by type and difficulty for you so I'd recommend starting with some easier ones in each category from early tests, trying to finish them, and then watching the videos regardless of your performance. After doing this move on to harder games from early tests, repeat until you've done almost every game from PT 1-20. Then try a section or two from PT's 20-40, identify strengths and weaknesses. Do the same as before, adjusting to your weaknesses. Finish these, then hit some 40-60 sections where you should be doing pretty well. Save 60+, for full tests. Revisit any games you found particularly challenging from before and watch the videos. This is not how I went from - 10 to - 1ish but I should've done it this way. Inferences come with playing with elements and rules up front before questions. As soon as I see a very restrictive rule, I circle it also

This will take time and patience, but you will find yourself improving.

1.When you made your inferences upfront, did you have to literally make a diagram to see how the rules interacted, or could you just think about it in your head?

2. Are you trying to do EVERYTHING in the video that JY does? (How he does it and the way in which he does it)

[dontsaywhatyoumean]

1. I tend not to realize or try to recognize how the rules interact until I've written them down. I try to put them together at this point. Especially when there are many rules, I find it difficult to write them all down as they interact without writing them down individually first.

2. I don't know. Now that I think of it, I may have only watched 1 full game of his. Typically I just skip to the sections where he answers the question I got wrong.

[BizBro]

1. I tend not to realize or try to recognize how the rules interact until I've written them down. I try to put them together at this point. Especially when there are many rules, I find it difficult to write them all down as they interact without writing them down individually first.

2. I don't know. Now that I think of it, I may have only watched 1 full game of his. Typically I just skip to the sections where he answers the question I got wrong.

That's not good. His set up is the most important part. You need to be that good at setting up the board and getting a grasp on the main inferences that govern the board if you want to go -0. This only happens through extreme repetition - do the games over and over. Any game that takes you more than 10 minutes, you should be setting aside and redoing them again fresh.

[dontsaywhatyoumean]

Which part isn't good? The second I assume, but the first as well? Is it not acceptable to write all the rules down individually first?

[sjp200]

Which part isn't good? The second I assume, but the first as well? Is it not acceptable to write all the rules down individually first?

Write them individually first if you need to, I do that as well but if I notice a rule is limiting right away, I'll play with it first. One of the biggest eye openers to me was a video in which it was a double layer sequencing with two different categories, four or five elements in each. While the game never said two elements were paired, the rules pushes together to prove it every time. This ended up being a must be true question later in the set. Because I found it early, the earlier questions were easier and that MBT was only five seconds. If I hadn't done it up front, each question would've easily taken thirty seconds longer, taking up another three minutes of my time

[sjp200]

I never really found a difference. The amount of influential inferences changes with the difficulty of the game. I personally did not benefit from reading the LG Bible. 7sage videos helped tremendously. Timing on games is more per section than per game. Usually you'll run 5-8-12-10ish on a section in order from first to last. Avoid using late PT's to learn games so that you can use them to gauge results. Games have the most bias after being retaken and the least helpful review except when first trying to learn the concept in general.

7sage conveniently sorts games by type and difficulty for you so I'd recommend starting with some easier ones in each category from early tests, trying to finish them, and then watching the videos regardless of your performance. After doing this move on to harder games from early tests, repeat until you've done almost every game from PT 1-20. Then try a section or two from PT's 20-40, identify strengths and weaknesses. Do the same as before, adjusting to your weaknesses. Finish these, then hit some 40-60 sections where you should be doing pretty well. Save 60+, for full tests. Revisit any games you found particularly challenging from before and watch the videos. This is not how I went from - 10 to - 1ish but I should've done it this way. Inferences come with playing with elements and rules up front before questions. As soon as I see a very restrictive rule, I circle it also

This will take time and patience, but you will find yourself improving.

1.When you made your inferences upfront, did you have to literally make a diagram to see how the rules interacted, or could you just think about it in your head?

2. Are you trying to do EVERYTHING in the video that JY does? (How he does it and the way in which he does it)

1. It depends on the game. When I can easily push rules to see I need to split the board, I'll make the new boards and start filling them in instantly. If it just simplifies my rules, I cross them out as written and write them in some combined way, similar to the way you'd do an undefined in/out or a relative sequencing.

2. I never tried to do as many as him, but I always watched videos to reinforce my method after a game to see if I went the same way as he did. A game that seems relatively open I'd actively look for a strong inference because that's just how I saw hard games to pattern out. Easier games like game 1 of just about every set I'd start with the questions and realize things along the way

[dontsaywhatyoumean]

I just ran into something that I cannot recall having seen before, and I'd like to know if I'm understanding correctly.

I'm looking at the 6 doctors, 2 clinics game, and it seems like one of the rules necessitates something that is impossible in the context of the other rules.

Is that possible, or am I misunderstanding something? It says "If L", but it seems like L can not be the "If" it is presenting.

[jepper]

I just ran into something that I cannot recall having seen before, and I'd like to know if I'm understanding correctly.

I'm looking at the 6 doctors, 2 clinics game, and it seems like one of the rules necessitates something that is impossible in the context of the other rules.

Is that possible, or am I misunderstanding something? It says "If L", but it seems like L can not be the "If" it is presenting.

Misunderstanding. I don't know what game you're looking at, but every time I had this kind of moment, it turned out to be me who was incorrect.

[dontsaywhatyoumean]

Maybe I should have more clearly phrased what I meant. The rule is possible, what it is necessitating isn't.

I went ahead with the game assuming that the rule's requirement was impossible, and it turns out that it was (according to 7Sage). That's the first time I've ever seen that.

God, it would have sucked to run into that on the real LSAT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybQKgOU5jdo

I also had assumed I was misunderstanding something.

[ThinkNegative]

Consider taking the velocity lsat course online, for a few hundred bucks that program is a steal and in my opinion the best approach to games, and I'm someone who was just awful at games myself.

Do this. I was just about to post but ^ beat me to it.

I was in your exact same position: clearly able to LSAT based on very strong LR and RC, yet comically unable to even come close to finishing all four games in LG on time. I studied my ass off for a very long time and just could. Not. Get it.

Finally I took the Velocity online LG course and after a few weeks I was busting games out like chopchopchop. Velocity's visually oriented method of games was perfect for me. Taught me to finally realize that solving games requires just a simple series of procedural steps. They're not some kind of demonic puzzle that requires 115% of your brain. (I'd been overthinking the games and getting caught in a self defeating loop of anxiety about the possibilities for each question.)

Also, at least when I took the course a few years ago, it was a kickass deal, and it came with a bit of material for LR and RC sections. (I don't know if this has changed, as it was a few years back.) That material helped me get to consistent -0 or -1 on LR and RC sections, where before I'd be -0 on a good day but potentially -3 or -4 on a bad day.

I won't ramble about it further but I credit Velocity LG course for getting me up to a high 99th percentile score on test day. Feel free to P.M. with questions.

[WorthlessDegree]

I just need to reaffirm this, http://7sage.com/how-to-get-a-perfect-s ... gic-games/

Just started doing this, and it might be the best thing to happen to my LSAT prep.