Newer Logic Game Question

Boulanger07
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 9:40 am

Newer Logic Game Question

Postby Boulanger07 » Sat Nov 13, 2010 5:22 pm

I noticed on the OCT lsat that there were a few "if such and such rule were removed, which of the following would keep the possibilities the same." I'm not sure if I ever remember seeing these in the LGB or in many of the practice exams I took. How do people typically deal with these and is LSAT moving toward using these questions more often?

kehoema2
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:52 pm

Re: Newer Logic Game Question

Postby kehoema2 » Sat Nov 13, 2010 5:29 pm

If you want to be smart and do them quick? Think of what the rule actually means and if you can make a quick substitution that is the same thing.

If you want to do these the long way, check each answer choice against every hypothetical you have. The correct one will not violate any hypo while the incorrect ones will.

I highly advise against the second unless you have alot of time, or have no idea what you are doing. Even then I would go with your best guess and come back to it. These questions can be time consuming.

User avatar
KevinP
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:56 pm

Re: Newer Logic Game Question

Postby KevinP » Sat Nov 13, 2010 9:46 pm

I've had an experimental section for LG in October and it also contained that question type. Methinks LSAC is trying to counter prep companies and that the new question types are here to stay.

User avatar
arism87
Posts: 1311
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 7:46 pm

Re: Newer Logic Game Question

Postby arism87 » Sat Nov 13, 2010 9:49 pm

KevinP wrote:I've had an experimental section for LG in October and it also contained that question type. Methinks LSAC is trying to counter prep companies and that the new question types are here to stay.


How does this counter prep companies?

I skip them and come back. Perhaps I don't know how to do them correctly, but they are time-consuming, and probably won't account for more than 2 questions on the test.

User avatar
KevinP
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:56 pm

Re: Newer Logic Game Question

Postby KevinP » Sat Nov 13, 2010 10:04 pm

arism87 wrote:
KevinP wrote:I've had an experimental section for LG in October and it also contained that question type. Methinks LSAC is trying to counter prep companies and that the new question types are here to stay.


How does this counter prep companies?

I skip them and come back. Perhaps I don't know how to do them correctly, but they are time-consuming, and probably won't account for more than 2 questions on the test.


I might be wrong on this but it seems to be a new question type and in general prep materials don't teach you how to attack such question types.

2011Law
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:40 pm

Re: Newer Logic Game Question

Postby 2011Law » Sat Nov 13, 2010 10:25 pm

Boulanger07 wrote:I noticed on the OCT lsat that there were a few "if such and such rule were removed, which of the following would keep the possibilities the same." I'm not sure if I ever remember seeing these in the LGB or in many of the practice exams I took. How do people typically deal with these and is LSAT moving toward using these questions more often?


damn, haven't done the most recent PTs yet, but that sounds like a combination of the types of questions that I'm usually bad at (ones that add/subtract a rule or ask for the possible combinations).

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: Newer Logic Game Question

Postby JazzOne » Sat Nov 13, 2010 10:27 pm

arism87 wrote:
KevinP wrote:I've had an experimental section for LG in October and it also contained that question type. Methinks LSAC is trying to counter prep companies and that the new question types are here to stay.


How does this counter prep companies?

I skip them and come back. Perhaps I don't know how to do them correctly, but they are time-consuming, and probably won't account for more than 2 questions on the test.

It counters the prep companies because we don't teach our students how to handle this. I talk to my students quite a bit about improvising and dealing with unknown factors, but they have to analogize or extrapolate from our methods rather than directly apply something they've practiced before.

User avatar
arism87
Posts: 1311
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 7:46 pm

Re: Newer Logic Game Question

Postby arism87 » Sat Nov 13, 2010 10:29 pm

KevinP wrote:
arism87 wrote:
KevinP wrote:I've had an experimental section for LG in October and it also contained that question type. Methinks LSAC is trying to counter prep companies and that the new question types are here to stay.


How does this counter prep companies?

I skip them and come back. Perhaps I don't know how to do them correctly, but they are time-consuming, and probably won't account for more than 2 questions on the test.


I might be wrong on this but it seems to be a new question type and in general prep materials don't teach you how to attack such question types.


Aah. Interesting. Also, I didn't read carefully enough to see how that is different from the plain "if X were not a rule.." question. So, point taken.

Maybe this is why 6 out of 9 questions I missed were LG.. hmmm.... hahaha

User avatar
fastforward
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:31 pm

Re: Newer Logic Game Question

Postby fastforward » Sat Nov 13, 2010 10:48 pm

The newly-released "Official LSAT Handbook" published by LSAC has a couple of pages on the "substitute condition" LG question type. Apart from omitting the ABC Prep Tests, this is the only update from the SuperPrep book. The inclusion of this topic in the latest LSAC publication is a pretty clear signal this question type is here to stay. A few of the more recent PT's have some variant of this question type. It's really just a variant of the common change-it-up-on the-final-question scenario that's been around for quite a while.

tomwatts
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:01 am

Re: Newer Logic Game Question

Postby tomwatts » Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:18 am

Since a lot of prep companies have students work from the most recent tests, and since this question type debuted in PT 57, this is not exactly countering prep. I talk about this question type at some length with my students now. Not at the same length as the normal question types, because it's just not as common, but still.

There are a few basic things that this question type can be getting at.
* Sometimes it's getting at related but interchangeable elements. If two elements must be next to each other but can go in either order (that is, HJ or JH, but nothing can separate them), and if there are no other restrictions on either element (aside from the eliminated rule), then the elements are interchangeable. The right answer is likely to give a similar rule but trade one of the elements for another. (This is how the one in PT 57 works, and if I remember correctly, the one in February of this year was based on the same principles.)
* Sometimes it's getting at stating something negatively that was originally phrased positively, or vice-versa. Thus, if the original rule was that T is NOT in 1, 2, or 3, then the right answer might be that T can ONLY be in 4, 5, or 6 (if there are 6 spaces in the game). This is more or less how the one in PT 58 goes.

As far as I know, that's about it, as far as what they've already done with the question type. Also as far as I know, there's never been more than 1 per section (except maybe in an experimental somewhere), so it's pretty easily skippable if you're really, really lost.

If the original clue gave you a deduction ("inference," in some terminologies), then you can try to re-derive it with the answer choices, too. That may eliminate some answers for you. If you're really dying, you can start to test some possibilities; if you can draw anything either that was allowed by the original rule but isn't by the new rule or that wasn't allowed by the original rule but is allowed by the new rule, then you've found a reason to eliminate an answer, too, but this is pretty time-consuming, as an above poster noted.

User avatar
KevinP
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:56 pm

Re: Newer Logic Game Question

Postby KevinP » Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:30 am

^
Imho I think it was meant to counter a specific method of preparing (e.g. LGB since it is a bit dated) and not the ways you've mentioned....it is only a hunch though. I did find your explanation very helpful so thank you for that. However, the October test did reverse the ordering from oldest to youngest as opposed to the usual youngest to oldest and that definitely cost me at least 30 seconds trying to reorder my diagram not that it matters since I'm retaking... definitely going to be on the look out for such tricks come December.

youknowryan
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:20 am

Re: Newer Logic Game Question

Postby youknowryan » Sun Nov 14, 2010 4:42 pm

Counter the test prep companies? Possibly, but without solid evidence that seems unlikely. The assumption is amongst the entire population taking the LSAT that AR is the section that people master the most and needs to evolve to keep the curves reasonable. In other words, because of Prep Test book/companies, the average number of misses will drop over time. Here's why I question that:

#1. The AR from the 23-39 (especially the 30s) was on average more difficult that today and very often there would be 1 or 2 games per section that would truly set to separate the top from lower scorers. Ex: The CD game in 31 is hard and the construction game in the same section was again quite tricky since its set up was unusual. The birds in the forest game was pretty tricky the first go through and the jeweler game in the same section is also quite tough. These game required more variables to be juggled in more complex manners and were thus tougher than today's games. In other words if the scores were improving the LSAC could make the current games a little more logically challenging to compensate.

#2. My girlfriend is a 2L and I often look at her materials. In taxation, or contracts a lot of the thinking that goes into AR is used. The idea of the LSAT is to test one's ability to think like law school requires. The rule replacement question is a way of testing that thinking in a manner that does happen in law. In taxation for example, one can get an end result numerous ways. If you change a part of the process correctly (i.e. replace the rule with another) you can still get the same result if done correctly while not changing other possibilities. If done incorrectly, you will get the same end result, but deny some other previously allowed result.

#3. It's all about accuracy: the LSAT evolves as test makers come up with new ways to better mimic law school's thought processes. When they do this the test becomes a better predictor of performance and that makes the LSAT more important in the entire student/school selection process. That new question types may throw off some people at first is something they expect, but the idea of war with test prep companies seems to be at best something on the back burner. Sure, it may be considered, but the available evidence indicates that something else is more important.

User avatar
AverageTutoring
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:18 pm

Re: Newer Logic Game Question

Postby AverageTutoring » Sun Nov 14, 2010 4:57 pm

These questions have been around for quite some time. They just dont appear that often. If you follow your conditional chains they can be done fairly quickly!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: applejacks888, Greenteachurro, JohnMaynardKeynes, theboringest, wildquest8200 and 10 guests