lsat makers should remove LGs

User avatar
incompetentia
Posts: 2307
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:57 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby incompetentia » Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:04 pm

People like to argue against things that they perceive to be personally detrimental. The end

User avatar
beleaguer
Posts: 126
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:00 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby beleaguer » Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:11 pm

i started off sucking at them, but after months of practice sections they became way more interesting/fun than the other sections. i actually kind of miss doing them.. :(

User avatar
Ragged
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Ragged » Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:20 pm

LGs test an important skill of being able to quickly organize and understand information. I can imagine that's an important skill to have in almost any professional field.

And I am not an LG master by any stretch of imagination.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby rayiner » Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:26 pm

Logic games test your short term working memory and ability to track relations between objects in your head. A typical law school issue spotter will test this skill heavily, particularly torts. You'll have a fact pattern with a bunch of interactions between parties that you'll have to keep straight and look at from different viewpoints.

That said, LG is learnable. Learn to diagram. The same skill will help you on exams too: I sometimes diagrammed my more complex torts fact patterns to keep things straight.

User avatar
BruceWayne
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:36 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby BruceWayne » Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:36 pm

rayiner wrote:Logic games test your short term working memory and ability to track relations between objects in your head. A typical law school issue spotter will test this skill heavily, particularly torts. You'll have a fact pattern with a bunch of interactions between parties that you'll have to keep straight and look at from different viewpoints.

That said, LG is learnable. Learn to diagram. The same skill will help you on exams too: I sometimes diagrammed my more complex torts fact patterns to keep things straight.


I do see somewhat of a similarity with this. But strangely enough LGs test this skill to a much higher level than a torts exam. I took a torts exam the other day and it was loaded with issues. Still, after I made a little outline I was able to keep track of them. Some of the games have a level of complexity on them that only having 35 minutes to do 4 of them is just brutal. You also have to juggle mathematical max min issues etc. that you just don't run into on a torts exam. Basically, it's just a lot of different possible claims that you have to keep track of, and you get a pretty good bit of time to do it. Not to mention there's no right or wrong answer like there is on LG. Getting one max min or in out rule wrong and suddenly you fail the whole LG.

User avatar
achilles
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 2:08 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby achilles » Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:37 pm

incompetentia wrote:People like to argue against things that they perceive to be personally detrimental. The end


agreed.


lsat makers should remove RC

User avatar
blurbz
Posts: 1229
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:43 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby blurbz » Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:40 pm

Veyron wrote:I assure you, logic game skillz do come into play your 1L year, perhaps you should pursue other opportunities if they bother you so much.



This is 100% the correct answer.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby IAFG » Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:42 pm

BruceWayne wrote:
rayiner wrote:Logic games test your short term working memory and ability to track relations between objects in your head. A typical law school issue spotter will test this skill heavily, particularly torts. You'll have a fact pattern with a bunch of interactions between parties that you'll have to keep straight and look at from different viewpoints.

That said, LG is learnable. Learn to diagram. The same skill will help you on exams too: I sometimes diagrammed my more complex torts fact patterns to keep things straight.

I took a torts exam the other day

You also have to juggle ... issues you just don't run into on a torts exam.

edited to show utter lack of credibility gtfo

Hedwig
Posts: 835
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:56 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Hedwig » Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:44 pm

It would be so much worse studying for the LSAT without the LG section. I like RC and all, but sometimes you need a little break from all that reading.

User avatar
Ragged
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Ragged » Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:47 pm

eit wrote:It would be so much worse studying for the LSAT without the LG section. I like RC and all, but sometimes you need a little break from all that reading.


That's actually credited. LG is a nice chance to catch your breath from reading, without LGs my later-sections performance would probably drop.

User avatar
BruceWayne
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:36 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby BruceWayne » Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:51 pm

IAFG wrote:
BruceWayne wrote:
rayiner wrote:Logic games test your short term working memory and ability to track relations between objects in your head. A typical law school issue spotter will test this skill heavily, particularly torts. You'll have a fact pattern with a bunch of interactions between parties that you'll have to keep straight and look at from different viewpoints.

That said, LG is learnable. Learn to diagram. The same skill will help you on exams too: I sometimes diagrammed my more complex torts fact patterns to keep things straight.

I took a torts exam the other day

You also have to juggle ... issues you just don't run into on a torts exam.

edited to show utter lack of credibility gtfo


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
Last edited by BruceWayne on Sat Oct 16, 2010 12:03 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
kkklick
Posts: 1021
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 8:33 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby kkklick » Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:53 pm

BruceWayne wrote:
IAFG wrote:
BruceWayne wrote:
rayiner wrote:Logic games test your short term working memory and ability to track relations between objects in your head. A typical law school issue spotter will test this skill heavily, particularly torts. You'll have a fact pattern with a bunch of interactions between parties that you'll have to keep straight and look at from different viewpoints.

That said, LG is learnable. Learn to diagram. The same skill will help you on exams too: I sometimes diagrammed my more complex torts fact patterns to keep things straight.

I took a torts exam the other day

You also have to juggle ... issues you just don't run into on a torts exam.

edited to show utter lack of credibility gtfo


You're an utter dumbass. The part that you edited out is totally relevant to the entire sentence. You're reasoning is analogous to the 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


LOL factor x1000. I think waiting for scores makes people so edgy they fight over the internet to feel better

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby IAFG » Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:55 pm

kkklick wrote:
LOL factor x1000. I think waiting for scores makes people so edgy they fight over the internet to feel better

i am not waiting on an LSAT score, i am a 1L who is sick of people acting like they have this shit in the bag bc they've done a practice exam.

User avatar
BruceWayne
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:36 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby BruceWayne » Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:56 pm

IAFG wrote:
kkklick wrote:
LOL factor x1000. I think waiting for scores makes people so edgy they fight over the internet to feel better

i am not waiting on an LSAT score, i am a 1L who is sick of people acting like they have this shit in the bag bc they've done a practice exam.


You mean like your ass? Except wait, have you even taken an exam?

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby IAFG » Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:59 pm

BruceWayne wrote:
IAFG wrote:
kkklick wrote:
LOL factor x1000. I think waiting for scores makes people so edgy they fight over the internet to feel better

i am not waiting on an LSAT score, i am a 1L who is sick of people acting like they have this shit in the bag bc they've done a practice exam.


You mean like your ass? Except wait, have you even taken an exam?

the difference is, i didn't contradict a 2L with all his 1L grades in acting like i know better how relevant the LSAT is to 1L exams.

User avatar
incompetentia
Posts: 2307
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:57 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby incompetentia » Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:59 pm

The last four posts are humorous on so many levels.

User avatar
BruceWayne
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:36 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby BruceWayne » Sat Oct 16, 2010 12:01 am

IAFG wrote:
BruceWayne wrote:
IAFG wrote:
kkklick wrote:
LOL factor x1000. I think waiting for scores makes people so edgy they fight over the internet to feel better

i am not waiting on an LSAT score, i am a 1L who is sick of people acting like they have this shit in the bag bc they've done a practice exam.


You mean like your ass? Except wait, have you even taken an exam?

the difference is, i didn't contradict a 2L with all his 1L grades in acting like i know better how relevant the LSAT is to 1L exams.


The fact that you cannot see that the answer to this question is almost entirely opinion based is crazy, particularly since you enjoy spitting out your bullshit one's as if their fact, and so frequently. FWIW I've had 2 and 3Ls tell me different, so what does that tell you? This is a MFing personal opinion.

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby PDaddy » Sat Oct 16, 2010 12:19 am

jd20132013 wrote:i feel like they're so irrelevant to anything you could possibly do

but they're my worst section so I'm biased

if they were replaced with a LR or RC id probably be getting 177s



No they should not remove them. LG's are relevant to understanding how to take CivPro exams. When you are trying to figure out where a litigant might sue, what the jurisdictions are (federal, state, or even municipal) based on diversity or federal question, or lack of either, etc, whom the litigant should sue given the fact pattern, what venue, whether or not it's possible to pierce the corporate veil due to fraud, restructuring, etc, you will need to draw up diagrams that compartmentalize the information.

Ask any 1L how they approached their Civ Pro exam. If they didn't draw a grid or some other structure to organize the information, they either did poorly or were very lucky. Ok, a few might be bonifide geniuses, and yet another few might have an easy prof.

My point is that the skills tested on the LSAT are useful during law school. My issue with the test is that it is an incomplete one that doesn't test ALL of the relevant skills. It only tests a few of them.
Last edited by PDaddy on Sat Oct 16, 2010 12:23 am, edited 3 times in total.

SupraVln180
Posts: 883
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 10:50 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby SupraVln180 » Sat Oct 16, 2010 12:21 am

achilles wrote:
incompetentia wrote:People like to argue against things that they perceive to be personally detrimental. The end


agreed.


lsat makers should remove RC



this.

User avatar
Rawlberto
Posts: 413
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 9:43 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Rawlberto » Sat Oct 16, 2010 12:33 am

I started getting 2 correct on LGs by guessing. Today I got my first perfect score on them. They are completely learnable. Just hit the LGB, work on making initial inferences, and then redo sets that you got incorrect a week after the fact. A lot of it is just getting comfortable with the types and knowing what small intricacies they will throw at you. This section is completely learnable.

User avatar
Lonagan
Posts: 338
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:03 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Lonagan » Sat Oct 16, 2010 12:38 am

This thread, in approximately one year:

"Joinder is haaaaaard, make it go awaaaaaay."

User avatar
BruceWayne
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:36 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby BruceWayne » Sat Oct 16, 2010 12:53 am

Lonagan wrote:This thread, in approximately one year:

"Joinder is haaaaaard, make it go awaaaaaay."


:roll: Not quite. Someone can have an issue with the LSAT, and not have an issue with legal doctrines. I'm not sure why people are making this seem like an impossibility.

User avatar
shanemahsa
Posts: 655
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:46 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby shanemahsa » Sat Oct 16, 2010 1:04 am

Logic games are fun.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby rayiner » Sat Oct 16, 2010 1:06 am

BruceWayne wrote:
IAFG wrote:
BruceWayne wrote:
rayiner wrote:Logic games test your short term working memory and ability to track relations between objects in your head. A typical law school issue spotter will test this skill heavily, particularly torts. You'll have a fact pattern with a bunch of interactions between parties that you'll have to keep straight and look at from different viewpoints.

That said, LG is learnable. Learn to diagram. The same skill will help you on exams too: I sometimes diagrammed my more complex torts fact patterns to keep things straight.

I took a torts exam the other day

You also have to juggle ... issues you just don't run into on a torts exam.

edited to show utter lack of credibility gtfo


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


It's not just keeping track of possible torts. My torts professor liked to make these elaborate causal chains linked by actions or multiple liability principles. Also, in contracts you'll face the problem of limiting combinatorial explosion which is tested on a lot of logic games. Ie: several issues * several ways to charecterize each issue * several possible applicable rules for each charecterization. You've got to be good at pruning the analysis space rapidly and collapsing common analyses just like you'd collapse functionally identical configurations in a logic game.
Last edited by rayiner on Sat Oct 16, 2010 1:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby d34d9823 » Sat Oct 16, 2010 1:08 am

BruceWayne wrote:
Lonagan wrote:This thread, in approximately one year:

"Joinder is haaaaaard, make it go awaaaaaay."


:roll: Not quite. Someone can have an issue with the LSAT, and not have an issue with legal doctrines. I'm not sure why people are making this seem like an impossibility.

Because in general, whining about impartial metrics is pathetic.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: studyingeveryday and 4 guests