Confusion on overall LG performance

[mgele]

I have taken numerous practice tests and generally understand the concepts of logic games for each type, but I am unable to gain a consistent yield in LG. For example in the June 1999, June 2004 and June 2011 Lsats I scored over 90% in the games section, usually getting 22/24 and only making a mistake in answer selection or something. I also had finished those games with time to spare. However, I have also had times where my scores on the exams have dragged because of a lack of performance in those areas. The December 2011, June 2001 and December 1995 in particular I probably finished 2.5 games and had to guess on the remainder.

Ive looked over the practice tests from in class as well as, the ones I have taken alone and there are no strong consistent weaknesses. In one test I may do well on linear/sequencing/grouping and then in a following test I may do poorly on a linear. I cannot understand the inconsistency that I am having, and it is beginning to stress me out as test day approaches not knowing if I will have an excellent games day or a terrible games day.

I have downloaded and completed the supplemental logic games sections. Completed the LG homework (with the exception of a killer game or so that I like to work into problems). So I have practiced all the games quite a bit and I am unsure of what else to do.

[mgele]

Also when reviewing the test, after I check my score and see which answers I got wrong. I go back to that game and work out the answers. Both the correct and incorrect ones to see exactly why I got it wrong. So even on the sections where I got 22/24 right or so I check each problem over to reinforce the work.

[Josh DeBottis]

A lot of different factors can contribute to a wide range of scores on logic games. Some things to consider are the time of day and other conditions under which you are taking the sections. Are you taking them all under strict timing? More so than any other section, performance can vary dramatically depending on the difficulty of a particular game. One thing you should always keep in mind is that you do not have to do the games in the order they are given to you. If there is a particular type of game that you have difficulty with, skip it until last. If you realize as you are going through the set-up that this game is particularly difficult, it can be useful to skip to another game, especially if this is a difficult game with only 5 questions.

The best thing that you can do is to practice, practice, practice. Go back to those sections that you did not perform as well on and try to figure out where you got hung up. Was there a particular game that you spent too much time on? Within that game, were there particular rules that gave you a lot of difficulty.

Remember, a large part of the LSAT is managing the mental aspect, so do not let yourself get too down or stressed out. Keep practicing and preparing and you will do great on game day.

[Adam Tyson]

Hey there mgele. Sounds like you have a good approach so far, going back and working back through the games to see what happened, good and bad. What I'd like to know, to try and help answer your question, is what did you find when you reviewed the games on which you didn't perform up to your goals? Were you missing a key inference? Did you mis-diagram a rule? In other words, is there perhaps a regular pattern of the type of mistakes you're making, as opposed to a pattern of a particular game type?

One thing I would suggest is looking at whether the games that slowed you down or otherwise troubled you is whether they have rules that are worded in a similar fashion. For example, some students struggle with rules that contain "but not both" (as in "F is either before G or after H, but not both"). Maybe we can find a pattern that we can focus on to get you to be more consistent with your game section.

Get back to us on what you found, and we'll see what we can do with that info. Meanwhile, keep on practicing - the more you do, the more comfortable you become with the way the rules are written and the way to approach various game types.

Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT Instructor

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Mgele,

I think my colleagues have made some good points and asked some good questions. I'm going to throw my two cents in as well, and address a slightly different point, related to your comment that, "In one test I may do well on linear/sequencing/grouping and then in a following test I may do poorly on a linear. I cannot understand the inconsistency that I am having."

Inconsistency in test performance is one of the most frustrating things you can encounter, but almost everyone encounters it. One reason for this is the way the LSAT is constructed, and how individual section difficulty varies from exam to exam. I talked about that phenomenon in this blog post: http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/lsat-te ... ty-varies/.

I'll be interested to see some of the answers you post to the questions my colleagues asked, but one key to consistency is to understand the relationships within various classifications of games, and how similar games can be. For example, although there are different types of Linear game, there are only a limited number of ways ideas are presented within the group of Linear games.

The best way to gain that knowledge is to study every game repeatedly until you can recognize every part of it. You will also find that as you do that you will begin to see certain more abstract patterns, and then when you take the actual test you will again see some of those same patterns and be able to move more quickly.

One way to get to this level is to tackle the material with the idea that you will have to teach it to a class. I know from personal experience that doing the games by themselves is one thing, but teaching them requires a whole new level of understanding. The true test of whether you really understand the concepts is to have to explain them to someone else. This angle forces you to consider the patterns present within the LSAT, and would better position you to attack problems effectively from the start. For me, even though I've done all the questions, when I have to teach them to a class I am required to look more deeply into the question. It's not sufficient to say that (B) is wrong; I have to know why, and then be able to connect that answer choice to other problems. So, if you think about the games in this fashion, it doesn’t really matter if you've seen them before; you will still be able to derive new insights—and in fact more insights—once you have seen them all, and you will be better positioned to connect everything on a more abstract level and perform more consistently.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[mgele]

The blog post captures my current issue it would seem. I have talked with Tyson via PM to look over some of my specific questions/setups and I believe the majority were accurate. However, I do find that the variance of my performance is section based. While my scores in the other two sections are quite static, there are times where they move up slightly while games drops. But they do not move in a similar fashion to games ex) 10 question swings.

Through taking and reviewing the practice tests I can generally tell which sections were more difficult (even if there is not a number assigned to it). But certainly having 1 whole section completed and having the knowledge of it being near perfect, gives quite a bit of confidence/relief.

I will have to try explaining the different game types to other people in order to improve my knowledge of the independent mechanics, as well as the abstract ideas of the games themselves. But I have been continually going over the lesson homework/supplement/test problems, printing them out again and working through them. So hopefully the repetition does aid in the process.