lsat makers should remove LGs Forum

[Jack Smirks]

Congratulations, you're retarded. To insinuate that TLS is comparable to a weightlifting forum reflects on your ability to contribute anything meaningful to this discussion. Please refrain from commenting on this forum in the future, ty.

Sorry, I was talking about douchey comments on the internet in general. I was merely telling Tainted_Praise (orange-letter poster) to not be so put off by TLS.

Haha, I know. I was being facetious.

You (naterj) wished me luck on the admissions process in another thread. After months of being stranded in an unfamiliar city where I had no friends, no job, no encouragement, no life, and just enough money in my savings account to buy food and have a place to stay (after blowing the rest on Kaplan), that one slightly positive comment actually made me feel a little better. Thank you.

No thanks are needed. Believe me you're not the first life I've saved on the interwebz.

[niederbomb]

Now, getting back on topic...

Desert Fox wrote:
Actually LG is the section least linked to law school performance. Though it's still about the same as GPA as a predictor.

Could this be why LSAC has made the logic games significantly easier since 2005?

Think about it - LG is the least linked to LS performance; therefore, LSAC makes the RC and LR harder (especially the RC, which is probably the most linked to LS performance) and makes the games significantly less prominent--and also reduces the number of questions.

The next step might be to include a few "game like" questions, the ones most similar to the classes that test for "LG skills", in the LR and add a 2nd RC section and a scored writing section.

Then I'd have no complaints about the test.

[motiontodismiss]

NO. NEVER!!!!

If they replaced one of the LR sections with LG I'd be kicking ass on the LSAT. I'm actually GOOD at LG, and it doesn't tire my brain out like LR. I started with -3 to -5 on LG and I don't know how I'll do now since I haven't taken a standard PT in forever.

[niederbomb]

NO. NEVER!!!!

If they replaced one of the LR sections with LG I'd be kicking ass on the LSAT. I'm actually GOOD at LG, and it doesn't tire my brain out like LR. I started with -3 to -5 on LG and I don't know how I'll do now since I haven't taken a standard PT in foreve

.

Too many people like you, too many people applying to law school, and too many lawyers. I presume there are fewer people who have the exact skill set necessary to succeed in LS (i.e. LR and RC skills) but, perhaps, suck at logic games. These are the ones who SHOULD be going to law school, and the LSAT should be adjusted accordingly.

The LG's are designed as if LS were some kind of trade school; it isn't; therefore, LSAC has adjusted accordingly by making the LG's easier and the other sections harder. I only wish they would do even more of this.

[motiontodismiss]

NO. NEVER!!!!

If they replaced one of the LR sections with LG I'd be kicking ass on the LSAT. I'm actually GOOD at LG, and it doesn't tire my brain out like LR. I started with -3 to -5 on LG and I don't know how I'll do now since I haven't taken a standard PT in foreve

.

Too many people like you, too many people applying to law school, and too many lawyers. I presume there are fewer people who have the exact skill set necessary to succeed in LS (i.e. LR and RC skills) but, perhaps, suck at logic games. These are the ones who SHOULD be going to law school, and the LSAT should be adjusted accordingly.

The LG's are designed as if LS were some kind of trade school; it isn't; therefore, LSAC has adjusted accordingly by making the LG's easier and the other sections harder. I only wish they would do even more of this.

What is the error in your reasoning?
a) you take for granted that I give a damn who "belongs" in the profession and who "doesn't" (as judged by you), and that I am not solely looking out for my own self-interest.

[niederbomb]

...and that I am not solely looking out for my own self-interest.

Yes, otherwise this thread wouldn't exist.

Basically, this thread is retarded because it contains two types of people 1) People who do poorly at logic games relative to the rest of the test and who think LSAC should remove them and 2) People who do worse at LR and RC than they do at logic games and, therefore, are horrified at the thought of LSAC removing logic games.

[d34d9823]

...and that I am not solely looking out for my own self-interest.

Yes, otherwise this thread wouldn't exist.

Basically, this thread is retarded because it contains two types of people 1) People who do poorly at logic games relative to the rest of the test and who think LSAC should remove them and 2) People who do worse at LR and RC than they do at logic games and, therefore, are horrified at the thought of LSAC removing logic games.

Or people who do well at all three and are tired of people whining for or against a perfectly good section of the test.

And how are you saying they got easier? Dinosaurs and interns are two of the hardest games I've done.

[JazzOne]

My civil procedure final was remarkably similar to logic games, only much more difficult. I had some fact patterns that were so complicated, I had to make diagrams to keep track of who was suing whom, where all the parties were from (not exactly a piece of cake if the party is a corporation), and where the various incidents occurred that gave rise to the dispute. Plus, the civ pro rules are pretty arbitrary, at least from the student's perspective.

[niederbomb]

And how are you saying they got easier? Dinosaurs and interns are two of the hardest games I've done.

Have you done 1-7? Or all of 29-35? Or 41? Or, I forget where it is, the "Zephyr Airlines" game?

Dinosaurs and interns would have been typical back then; now, they are an anomaly.

I, for one, finished Dinos in 8 minutes with -0. Interns, though, I had some trouble with, but it's nothing compared to earlier games like "Birds in the Forest," "Snakes and Lizards," or the "circular linearity" game on PT 1.

[d34d9823]

And how are you saying they got easier? Dinosaurs and interns are two of the hardest games I've done.

Have you done 1-7? Or all of 29-35? Or 41? Or, I forget where it is, the "Zephyr Airlines" game?

Dinosaurs and interns would have been typical back then; now, they are an anomaly.

I, for one, finished Dinos in 8 minutes with -0. Interns, though, I had some trouble with, but it's nothing compared to earlier games like "Birds in the Forest," "Snakes and Lizards," or the "circular linearity" game on PT 1.

I've done sporadic tests through there. I felt like the older games were harder computationally, but the newer ones require more clever inferences, which I like because it kills the testing companies. I wouldn't say that I felt like either set was harder overall.

[niederbomb]

I've done sporadic tests through there. I felt like the older games were harder computationally, but the newer ones require more clever inferences, which I like because it kills the testing companies. I wouldn't say that I felt like either set was harder overall.

Maybe it depends on the person, then, but I would swear that 48-60 are a lot easier than 1-47. On the new ones, I'm okay (-5)---->Good (-0-2). On the old ones from before the first book of 10, I'm poor (-6)---->worse (-8).

I even saw this one article in Wikipedia that said "Warning: the LG section has gotten much easier since this was written."

Wikipedia proves the LG section has gotten easier.

I'm not sure what I would have done if I had had to take the LSAT 10 years ago.

[ahduth]

Logic games are fun.

TITCR.

[d34d9823]

I've done sporadic tests through there. I felt like the older games were harder computationally, but the newer ones require more clever inferences, which I like because it kills the testing companies. I wouldn't say that I felt like either set was harder overall.

Maybe it depends on the person, then, but I would swear that 48-60 are a lot easier than 1-47. On the new ones, I'm okay (-5)---->Good (-0-2). On the old ones from before the first book of 10, I'm poor (-6)---->worse (-8).

I even saw this one article in Wikipedia that said "Warning: the LG section has gotten much easier since this was written."

Wikipedia proves the LG section has gotten easier.

I'm not sure what I would have done if I had had to take the LSAT 10 years ago.

I feel like the old ones had 3 hard games instead of 1, but who cares?

[D. H2Oman]

You're an utter dumbass. The part that you edited out was the most relevant to the entire sentence (then again that's about the only way you could ever argue with someone with any sort of success---by using strawmans). You're reasoning is analogous to when Fox News edited out the NAACP speech of Shirley Sherrod--not surprising as you seem to share a lot of the same viewpoints and reasoning ability of Fox News. In case you are not aware, Logic games are actually a lot closer to discreet mathematics in many of their principles (I even had a PHD in math tell me this after he glanced over some games). If you think juggling finite numerical issues is the same thing as keeping up with how many different torts this person may have committed, you are an idiot. HTMFH

omg you're d brooks aren't you

holy hell, I think you're right. What a snipe by IAFG.

[motiontodismiss]

Logic games are fun.

TITCR.

[fosterp]

God I hope not.

My last PT i went -0 -0 -0 -7, the 7 being rc

i swear i have add or something...

[AverageTutoring]

...and that I am not solely looking out for my own self-interest.

Yes, otherwise this thread wouldn't exist.

Basically, this thread is retarded because it contains two types of people 1) People who do poorly at logic games relative to the rest of the test and who think LSAC should remove them and 2) People who do worse at LR and RC than they do at logic games and, therefore, are horrified at the thought of LSAC removing logic games.

Or people who do well at all three and are tired of people whining for or against a perfectly good section of the test.

And how are you saying they got easier? Dinosaurs and interns are two of the hardest games I've done.

Really? MOV Dinos was a very simple game as long as you used subscripts efficiently and found your placeholders (as you would any in and out game), and interns was a very standard two tier deduction game. When LSAC gives you a game with two tiers, there are always some key deductions that make the game fly; interns was no different.

I think games from back in the day, snake and lizards for example, were much tougher. But that's just me.

[d34d9823]

Really? MOV Dinos was a very simple game as long as you used subscripts efficiently and found your placeholders (as you would any in and out game), and interns was a very standard two tier deduction game. When LSAC gives you a game with two tiers, there are always some key deductions that make the game fly; interns was no different.

I think games from back in the day, snake and lizards for example, were much tougher. But that's just me.

I have no clue what you just said. But if you got them right, uh, good work!

[AverageTutoring]

Really? MOV Dinos was a very simple game as long as you used subscripts efficiently and found your placeholders (as you would any in and out game), and interns was a very standard two tier deduction game. When LSAC gives you a game with two tiers, there are always some key deductions that make the game fly; interns was no different.

I think games from back in the day, snake and lizards for example, were much tougher. But that's just me.

I have no clue what you just said. But if you got them right, uh, good work!

I wanted to know why you found them tougher, then say for example, snakes and lizzards, birds in the forest, etc. Personally, circlular and mapping games get to me....those guys just bend me over with a paddle everytime i see em.

[Ragged]

I agree that games got easier. Dinos were tough and interns got me on the real thing, but its nothing like snakes/lizards and bus seats and many other from 7-35 PTs.

[incompetentia]

I found the games from 1-40 very simple. Maybe I'm just weird.

Dinos I didn't like - I think there might have been one from 59 that was kind of crappy too - but the games from 55+ have been taking me extra time...I think the amount of time I spent on LG sections from that point on has been about 20% more than I used to spend.

[ahduth]

God, you guys are making me want to take the LSAT again just so I can do more logic games. What really sucked when I actually took the test was I had to pee during this section, so I missed a couple.

[Ragged]

I found the games from 1-40 very simple. Maybe I'm just weird.

Dinos I didn't like - I think there might have been one from 59 that was kind of crappy too - but the games from 55+ have been taking me extra time...I think the amount of time I spent on LG sections from that point on has been about 20% more than I used to spend.

Wow that's like the opposite of me lol.

[sarahlawg]

I didn't do as well on earlier games because I did them earlier...after doing games for three months the newer ones were easy. But then again, so were all games.

[SchopenhauerFTW]

I remember screwing up on game involving a student's course load, with two statistics classes offered at different times and one of these never being with other subjects but the other one being okay and sometimes neither of them being okay but one could be taken if the kid took history but never the other but what about learning Russian or Japanese and holy crap I'm way over my time limit for this one game why did I choose to do this game second I have two games left dammit dammit dammit