Favre4Prez wrote:dingbat wrote:bdm261 wrote: I simply cannot comprehend logic games no matter how it is explained to me.
I want to work in criminal defense and I would ideally like to work for the PD office during law school and eventually get a position there and take advantage of LRAP.
I feel sorry for your future clients. If you're unable to figure out logic games, how are you going to figure out how different pieces of evidence fit together?
Either you can figure out causality from disjointed clues, or you can't.
There's no harm in not having a certain ability, but there is harm in putting someone else's life on the line based thereupon.
Piecing together what did or did not happen tends to be one big logic game, so unless you plan on only representing admittedly guilty clients, or hope to get every case thrown due to a technicality, please do not go into criminal defense
I don't quite understand/agree your argument dingbat. I myself always struggled with games and missed 9 questions on the games section of my highest LSAT. I thought I had a better handle on games than I actually did; and come test day, combined with nerves, I struggled with a notoriously difficult games section. But, I only missed a combined nine ofther questions on the remaining sections of the test. Does this mean that if I can even make it through law school (what kind of a dummy goes -9 on LG, right?), and I can secure gainful legal employment (what kind of person with an LSAT below 170 gets a job these days?), I am going to make a horrible attorney and do a serious diservice to my clients and the legal profession as a whole? So by your logic, now the LSAT is not a reliable metric for one's future success as a law student and attorney. Instead, the logic games section of the LSAT has taken its place. Fantastic.
There's a difference between bombing a section on a test and not understanding the concepts.
My sister can't do logic games at all. Her mind is just not wired that way. Doesn't mean there's something wrong with her, but that she should not choose a field that requires a lot of logic reasoning (such as crim defense).
Again, I differentiate between failing a test and not having an ability (as OP stated) as well as differentiating between a job that relies heavily on that ability bs a job that doesn't rely as heavily on that ability