LR Question Type Training Drills

[julie_kang]

Hi Adam,

Thanks for the advice. I have yet another question.

I seem to be at a loss when it comes to sequencing games. I've been through the chapter in LGB and have completed the drills in the LGTT (took forever). Some games are very easily completed but with the others I feel like I don't know what to do upon completion of the diagram. For example, the diagramming is fine, but then I'm stuck when it comes to making inferences. I re-read the chapter on sequencing games in the LGB, but I still have the same problem. (btw, I'm referring to the sequencing games that do not include formal logic in the rules. I;m referring to the games that have " A is heavier than B" types of rules. )

I'm doing okay with the other types of LG. I hope to bring these up to the same comfort level!

Thank you!
Julie

[Adam Tyson]

If you mean what we call "Pure" sequencing games, Julie, then it's no surprise that you are having a hard time finding inferences. For the most part, in those games, there are none to be made! I tell my students to prephrase two things after they complete a pure sequencing diagram:

1) What could be first?

2) What could be last?

That's it! Rarely are there additional inferences to be made, because the diagram has encompassed them all already.

Now, a rare exception to that would be games like the one we saw in the September 2016 test, the now-infamous "computer virus" game. In that case, while it was a pure sequencing game, they did not give us the entire sequence. Not every variable was easily placed in the order as before something and after something. Instead, we had to infer that there were only two variables that could ever start the sequence without seeing them placed in the diagram (because the other variables all had to come after something, even though we weren't always sure what it was they came after). We also had to infer that those same two variables were the only ones that another variable could pass the virus to. That set up two main frameworks for the diagram, one where one of those variables was first and the other got it from that third one, and another with those two variables reversed.

If your pure sequencing diagram sets out all the variables, and places them all in some certain relationship to others (before or after, or sometimes tied), then you really only have those two prephrases to lead you to inferences, and then it's time to dive into the questions. If your diagram leaves holes, with variables not placed, then you need to make some inferences about how the missing variables could relate to the known variables. Take a look at that computer virus game and you'll see what I mean. We have a set of video explanations of it in this forum here's the link: lsat/viewforum.php?f=1199

If you are not talking about pure sequencing games, but about basic or advanced linear games, tell us more about what you're looking at. Maybe a page reference and/or a reference to a sample game by month and year?

[julie_kang]

Hi Adam,

I'm at week 7 in the 12 week study Powerscore study schedule. I'm scheduled to take the lsat in February and thinking I'll have to reschedule for the June date 2017.

Here is my dilemma. I went back and did some review of linear logic games in the LGB chapter 3. It took me over 12 minutes to complete one game...the next one took me even longer, etc. Please keep in mind I already completed this chapter early on in my studies in addition to completing the accompanying assignment of linear games in the Logic games type training book. And yet, I was still unable to complete a simple game in the 8 minute 45 second time frame. In fact, my timing got worse for the next 4 games. My problem is that I don't come up with all of the inferences before diving into the questions making them that much harder to solve. Knowing that this is my main problem, I continued working on several more questions only reading the scenario, making the diagrams and inferences WITHOUT doing the questions. (first question: do you think this is a good approach? )

With that said, and although I am completely discouraged, I do know that I am improving. However, since my timing is still not right and I'm still struggling to this degree, I don't think I'm ready to take the Feb. exam. My LR sections are about the same....accuracy in both areas of LG and LR seem okay, but timing is a huge issue.

If I wait until June to take the exam, what should I do differently to prepare? Even following the 12 week schedule religiously and putting in several hours daily is not doing the trick for me. I have a Phd in an unrelated field and I do know that I don't have a learning disability: so I should be able to do this right? !?

I'm thinking that I need to spend longer amounts of time on each section to really get them solid before moving onto the next topic (?) Please advise. I'm almost ready to throw in the towel.

Thanks,
Julie

[Adam Tyson]

Hey Julie, Happy New Year! Sounds like you are moving along at a good pace, but I understand your frustration at things not progressing as well as you'd like. Here's my advice:

First, as long as you are not applying for the current admissions cycle, to start law school in the Fall of 2017, there is a long list of good reasons to delay until June. You get more time to study and take practice tests, the February test is not released so you cannot learn much from the experience after the fact, the June test is in the afternoon so you may be better rested and fed beforehand, and more. So don't feel badly about delaying, because it's probably a wise move with a lot of payoff for you.

Second, if you are going to delay, you need to adjust your study plan. Instead of continuing on the 12 week plan, take a look at some of our other self-study plans and find one that's a good fit for you. You don't necessarily have to start back at square one on a four-month plan, but you can modify that plan to take into account what you have already done.

As for your timing issues on games, while we strive for an average of 8 minutes and 45 seconds per game, that is only an average. Some games will take you 12 minutes, others may take 6 or 7. The point is not to tie you to a fixed amount of time, but to become more efficient and work at a pace that allows you to continue to increase the number of questions you answer correctly. For now, try working at a pace that allows you to complete three games in the allotted time (about 11.5 minutes per game on average, leaving 30 seconds to fill in the bubbles on the remaining questions). Sometimes I even take 12-13 minutes on a game, and I'm pretty darn good at them!

I do think it's good to work on scenarios and inferences, asking yourself a series of "what if" questions after you get the rules down to see what else you can learn about the game. What if J is on the Green team? What if the doctor operates on Tuesday? What if H is delivered 4th? This is part of the process of drawing inferences, and I sometimes call it "thinking with your pencil". Just try something - anything! - to get yourself unstuck. If you really cannot think of a single thing to try, then my suggested default is to try the first variable in the list and put it in the first group or first position in the order.

I would still, at some point, do the questions associated with the game, because that's where the rubber meets the road. Did the diagram help? Did the questions help you better understand what you should have diagrammed? Did they reveal an undiscovered inference, and how could you have found that inference on your own? Doing the questions is a part of the learning process, so don't let that resource go to waste.

My advice about pacing is the same for LR and RC. It's never about how many questions you answer, but only about how many you answer correctly. Slow down if you must in order to improve accuracy. I would rather answer 18 questions and get them all right than answer 24 questions and get only 15 right, wouldn't you? So, find your best pace for your highest level of accuracy, and work at that pace. As you improve in your approaches, your accuracy and your pace will increase, little by little. If you are delaying until June, that's plenty of time to get there slowly, one step at a time.

Last bit of advice - consider tutoring. Self study is great, and we have some awesome books and other resources to help you, but there's really nothing like having someone working with you in real time, one-on-one, to help you find new ways to solve problems and improve techniques. We have online tutors all over the world that can work with you at your schedule, and we may have someone available in person near you too, depending on where you are. Give our office a call and inquire about tutoring packages, see if someone is in your area that you can chat with, and think about trying a few hours to start with.

Nobody is throwing in the towel yet! You can do it!