Is it more effective to learn Logic Games by the order of their PrepTests or by game type? Forum

[gmerch15]

So far in my Logic Games study I've been working through them chronologically, i.e. the 4 games from PT 10, then PT 11, and so on. I've done this with the idea in mind that I'll be working through the most recent problems in the several weeks before taking the test.

However, I've seen others take the approach of sorting the games by type such as "Basic Linear - Balanced" or "Grouping - Undefined" and working through them in this fashion.

Link to T14's post about game types: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... e#p1042536

Is this second strategy more effective?

[Alexandros]

Game type.

[Mikey]

Game type.

[Veil of Ignorance]

Game type.

[Voyager]

for sure game type.

[Future Ex-Engineer]

Game type, but even more effective is to just learn to think properly about logic games.

If you know 'types', but then run across a weird one on test day, you might be hosed. If you actually learn how to process the information presented by games and critically evaluate it/apply rules, you'll crush any games.

[Mikey]

Game type, but even more effective is to just learn to think properly about logic games.

If you know 'types', but then run across a weird one on test day, you might be hosed. If you actually learn how to process the information presented by games and critically evaluate it/apply rules, you'll crush any games.

this is true and I agree. but I feel like learning by type will still allow you to adapt any weird games to the diagramming you already know. you just have to think about how you will approach it.

[Future Ex-Engineer]

Game type, but even more effective is to just learn to think properly about logic games.

If you know 'types', but then run across a weird one on test day, you might be hosed. If you actually learn how to process the information presented by games and critically evaluate it/apply rules, you'll crush any games.

this is true and I agree. but I feel like learning by type will still allow you to adapt any weird games to the diagramming you already know. you just have to think about how you will approach it.

Agreed - learning by type I think is quite effective, especially for non-engineering/hard maths types learning to take the test. It's probably the best short term substitute for years of undergrad in problem solving courses.

The learning by type method pushed me from my start of -5 to -0 in about 3 weeks (but I did have the problem solving background, so who knows)

[AJordan]

I'll play devil's advocate here and say that I think there is more to be gleaned from doing games by PT section than by type though, admittedly, it's person dependent. I never learned a "game type" per se. I just started sensing patterns in the ways certain games are set up/worded. I think I got some serious value by allowing myself be surprised by the next game that was coming while studying/PTing and I really think that paid off in spades on my actual test where I was flying high and then turned to game 4 to see something that I hadn't seen in months. There is value in learning how not to panic when you see something unfamiliar. If your goal is to accurately complete 3 games or fewer, then yeah, maybe type is the way to go. If you're gunning for -0 I think at least some of your study needs to be timed sections when you don't know what's coming next.

[Future Ex-Engineer]

I'll play devil's advocate here and say that I think there is more to be gleaned from doing games by PT section than by type though, admittedly, it's person dependent. I never learned a "game type" per se. I just started sensing patterns in the ways certain games are set up/worded. I think I got some serious value by allowing myself be surprised by the next game that was coming while studying/PTing and I really think that paid off in spades on my actual test where I was flying high and then turned to game 4 to see something that I hadn't seen in months. There is value in learning how not to panic when you see something unfamiliar. If your goal is to accurately complete 3 games or fewer, then yeah, maybe type is the way to go. If you're gunning for -0 I think at least some of your study needs to be timed sections when you don't know what's coming next.

I think you're really just agreeing with everyone - no one is saying not to do PTs or timed sections...

We're just of the opinion that if you learn the game types first, you'll be better set when you go to practicing sections.