lsat makers should remove LGs

Tainted_Praise
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:20 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Tainted_Praise » Sat Oct 16, 2010 1:19 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



I used to feel this way.... Until I mastered LG's.... :D Do like 10-15 logic games a day for about 2 months straight... You should be fine.... I don't know your study schedule or if this seems like a lot to you.... But just do this like everyday for the next two months... I'm sure you'll feel quite differently about LG's.... They soon become the easy portion of the test. Seriously.

User avatar
GoGetIt
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:53 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby GoGetIt » Sat Oct 16, 2010 1:58 am

and i wish i had $30 billion in the bank

SchopenhauerFTW
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:22 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby SchopenhauerFTW » Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:06 am


hssnig
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 9:29 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby hssnig » Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:26 am

it should be all LG

Concerning how other sections affect 1L students, how do they come into factoring their success? I love the LG section, but I dread RC and I can bare LR. I guess I have a mathematics mind, I am just wondering if my weakness in RC will affect me in the long term in law school.

Tainted_Praise
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:20 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Tainted_Praise » Sat Oct 16, 2010 3:11 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


TLS makes me scared of going into this type of career..... Some of you people here are just so blunt and so harsh. My God.

jj821
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 3:24 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby jj821 » Sat Oct 16, 2010 3:50 am

i love games, especially when i knock out a section in 20 minutes. they test something completely different from LR or RC, and therefore, have to be a part of the LSAT foreverrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

User avatar
niederbomb
Posts: 962
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby niederbomb » Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:49 am

I think LSAC should add a second RC section. Then we'd have 2XLR and 2 X RC. Maybe one of the sections could be devoted exclusively to comparative reading. Even if law schools have one or two courses that test some of the same skills as logic games, I think RC and comparative reading are much closer to most of what you'll be doing in law school and as a lawyer.

Case in point: The British LNAT, for LLb programs, does not have a logic games section (It's all reading), and I'm not sure anyone on here is prepared to say that, for this reason at least, UK lawyers are inferior to U.S. ones.

Perhaps a scored writing section that candidates must take seriously would also be much more relevant and helpful than logic games.

EDIT: I'll agree that LG is a little bit like complex scheduling, which you might have to do as a lawyer; however, having worked in a warehouse, I believe they have software for this type of task nowadays, so this is not a good argument for including LG.

biladtreasure2
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:45 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby biladtreasure2 » Sat Oct 16, 2010 1:44 pm

I actually do think the AR section is relevant. You are given a complex set of rules (much less complex than the actual law, by the way). You have to keep them all in your head and be able to recall them when they apply. The games are no more absurd than the infinite variety of human experiences, and its aberrations.

It's what lawyers do, in its most abstract form. I say it is important.

User avatar
acrossthelake
Posts: 4432
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby acrossthelake » Sat Oct 16, 2010 1:53 pm

d34dluk3 wrote:The American mindset - if you do poorly, it's not you, it's the metric. It must be changed!


+1


d34duk3, SF misses you, and this is part of the reason.

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 3:47 pm

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.


Law school is less about "legal doctrines" than about applying "legal doctrines" (aka "rules") to facts. Learning the rules is the easy part.

SchopenhauerFTW
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:22 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby SchopenhauerFTW » Sat Oct 16, 2010 3:48 pm

Tainted_Praise wrote:
BruceWayne wrote: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


TLS makes me scared of going into this type of career..... Some of you people here are just so blunt and so harsh. My God.


Whoops I just LOL'd while waiting at my departure gate.
There are bound to be people who are critical of what you say or willing to pick a fight in any online forum dedicated to a particular subject, whether it be law school, sports, memes, weightlifting, 19th century French poetry, 1980s hair metal, etc. Don't let TLS bully you around.
Regardless of all that, you can't be overly sensitive or a big softy if you want to go into law. You need to maintain your composure when someone is trying to tear you/what you say apart.

HeavenWood
Posts: 2915
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:42 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby HeavenWood » Sat Oct 16, 2010 5:04 pm

Why do people insist on wishing for things that just won't happen? I empathize with the OP: I suck at games too. But every second spent bitching about the "unfairness" of a section could be spent improving at said section. Whining won't get you into a good law school.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby 09042014 » Sat Oct 16, 2010 5:08 pm

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

User avatar
acrossthelake
Posts: 4432
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby acrossthelake » Sat Oct 16, 2010 5:41 pm

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.


This is correct.


I just want them to keep using LG because I like logic puzzles and they're well-constructed.

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

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby kkklick » Sat Oct 16, 2010 5:53 pm

"lsat makers should remove LGs"

Umm... no.

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 7:23 pm

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.



THANK YOU! People are taking what I said to the extreme. All of the sections included on the LSAT are relevant, but by far, LG are the least relevant. If you have trouble with RC then you are in for a world of hurt in LS, LR is similar but to a lesser extent, for LG this is true but to a much lesser extent.

User avatar
Jack Smirks
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 5:35 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Jack Smirks » Sat Oct 16, 2010 7:34 pm

SchopenhauerFTW wrote:
Tainted_Praise wrote:
BruceWayne wrote: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


TLS makes me scared of going into this type of career..... Some of you people here are just so blunt and so harsh. My God.


Whoops I just LOL'd while waiting at my departure gate.
There are bound to be people who are critical of what you say or willing to pick a fight in any online forum dedicated to a particular subject, whether it be law school, sports, memes, weightlifting, 19th century French poetry, 1980s hair metal, etc. Don't let TLS bully you around.
Regardless of all that, you can't be overly sensitive or a big softy if you want to go into law. You need to maintain your composure when someone is trying to tear you/what you say apart.

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.

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

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby IAFG » Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:01 pm

BruceWayne wrote:
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

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

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby d34d9823 » Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:31 pm

naterj wrote: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.

LOL, pretentious much?

User avatar
Jack Smirks
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 5:35 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Jack Smirks » Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:34 pm

d34dluk3 wrote:
naterj wrote: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.

LOL, pretentious much?

WOOOOSH.

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

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby incompetentia » Sat Oct 16, 2010 10:15 pm

What principle can be best used to justify the arguments above?
(A) People are people.
(B)

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 10:36 pm

naterj wrote: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.


Yeah seriously,the biggest difference is that the guys in the weightlifting forum actually get to touch women on a regular basis, and they can back up their trash talk in real life. That's very different than the posters on TLS.

User avatar
Jack Smirks
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 5:35 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Jack Smirks » Sat Oct 16, 2010 10:46 pm

BruceWayne wrote:
naterj wrote: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.


Yeah seriously,the biggest difference is that the guys in the weightlifting forum actually get to touch women on a regular basis, and they can back up their trash talk in real life. That's very different than the posters on TLS.

I touch women on a regular basis.

User avatar
Jack Smirks
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 5:35 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Jack Smirks » Sat Oct 16, 2010 10:47 pm

naterj wrote:
BruceWayne wrote:
naterj wrote: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.


Yeah seriously,the biggest difference is that the guys in the weightlifting forum actually get to touch women on a regular basis, and they can back up their trash talk in real life. That's very different than the posters on TLS.

I touch women on a regular basis.

You're full of shit.

SchopenhauerFTW
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:22 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby SchopenhauerFTW » Sat Oct 16, 2010 11:58 pm

naterj wrote:
d34dluk3 wrote:
naterj wrote: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.

LOL, pretentious much?

WOOOOSH.


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.

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.

Logic Games should not be removed.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests