jdstl wrote: lifestooquick wrote: jdstl wrote:
jdstl wrote:I'm shocked to see everyone think the games were hard.
Games are always my weakest section, and I didn't have to guess on any. I didn't come up with the key inference on the final game, but I was able to power through with lots of hypos. I expect a - 2 or -3 on the section from careless mistakes.
EDIT: I think the trend toward plug and chug games with few master inferences (the kind they loved in earlier tests). most of these games just required epic hypos, my pages were absolutely filled with scratch.
I completely agree with this. I found that trying to make some elegant, all-answering master diagram like you used to be able to just wasn't happening and had a TON of hypos all over. Brute forced my way through a lot of the questions.
Exactly. I actually tend to think this type of question benefits folks (like me) who aren't intuitively good at the games. I'm hard pressed to ever spot tricky inferences, but because of that I'm used to racing through PT's doing mass quantities of hypos.
Please don't take this personally, as the comment is directed to the testmakers, not the test-takers (including smart folks like yourself who have the advantage through their speed with hypos).
But should LSAC really be throwing in Logic Games that give the advantage to those who produce massive numbers of hypos quickly? What relevance does a bunch of plug and play have to law school? I guess you're managing a bunch of info in a small amount of space and being required to do so with speed; and your memory is being tested. Maybe I answered my own question. I just can more clearly see the need to test one's inference-making ability to determine Law School readiness than the ability to reproduce lots of hypos.
I'm aware there was an inference for the last game, seems like some people got it, some 170+ preptesters missed it, etc. Just seems that what jdstl makes sense that mad skillz in hypo-producing would make one just as able to solve the questions as being a master infer-er.