Drill LGs by section, or by game type? Forum

[GnarMarBinx]

Hey everyone,

I have heard a bit of varying answers on whether to drill logic games by section, or by game type. Right now I am at the point where I understand all the basics, but still struggle with timing and some diagramming and inference-making on basically all game types. I average about -6 to -8 on a timed section mainly due to the time constraint/sometimes being dumb and missing a key inference.

Do you think at this stage it would be better to drill by game type or by section? I started drilling by section but have recently been thinking mastering each game type fist might be a better idea. I started using this guide yesterday which categorizes the games up until PT 40: http://lsatblog.blogspot.ca/2009/07/log ... types.html

I have already used many, and plan to use more of the practice tests above 40 for PTs. I am going through linear games first, then advanced linear, then grouping, etc -- just as the blog post has them set up. Is this method effective for where I am sitting in logic games right now? I know that the points gained by mastering the LG section would greatly benefit my score, so I am hoping to do all I can to capitalize on that.

Thanks in advance to everyone who responds.

[MrAdultman]

I always did it by section in order to most closely mimic testing conditions. I bought the Cambridge Questions By Type books for practice, then would mark out 4 games, each of a different type and varying in difficulty, and then go through them timed. I feel it's important to be used to having different game types back-to-back - it's essential to be able to start diagramming immediately, no matter what game type it is. It also helped me conserve my actual full PTs. But if you find yourself struggling with any type of game, by all means spend time drilling it first.

[Slippin' Jimmy]

I initially did games by type when I was still learning how things worked, but once I got down to around -5 I started doing actual timed sections.

[Gluteus]

Drilling by game type makes it easier to pick up on inferences/set ups that are common/typical of that game type.

For example, if you sit down for a 3 hour drill session and get 10-15 games of the same type done, you might notice that there are a couple common set ups and and a number of inferences that were used multiple times. Whereas you wouldn't necessarily be as easily able to pick up on this if you keep switching up game types.

[GnarMarBinx]

Thanks everyone! I think I will continue to drill by type for a little bit until I can get through at least a solid drill session of about 15 games per type. Then I will drill full sections after to practice timing and simulate test conditions better. I will also continue practice testing during the whole process.

[AJordan]

Removed