The tricky LG sections - a new explanation

delusional
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:57 pm

The tricky LG sections - a new explanation

Postby delusional » Sun Dec 12, 2010 2:53 pm

It's been bothering me how the recent tests seem to have twists that don't fit in to the historic types of games. To us TLS-ers, they seem exceptionally difficult, and we wonder how they made it through the experimentation.

People on TLS are always debating whether LSAC is addressing the new teaching techniques to keep scores stable, or if the really prepared test takers are too small a proportion to be significant.

I think that these games are not harder per se than the older types. If the LSAT is equated so that the average score is a 150, that means (with some variability) that when they equate an experimental section, it is normal for half the total cumulative answers to come back wrong. Since these games are not any different to an unprepared test taker, who is not diagramming, or if he/she is, it is on the fly, the dino game, etc. won't score significantly different than any other game. As always, the average game is half wrong, on average.

The problem is that for prepared testers as a group, the games don't fit into the preparation. Furthermore, to prepared testers as a group, half wrong is not any sort of option. But since well-prepared testers are not a significant enough percentage of all test takers, the experimental difference between easily diagrammable games and not easily diagrammable games is not enough to keep the questions off the test - it's not even enough to create a great curve, hence the -11 on PT 57.

Does this make sense?

bartleby
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:23 am

Re: The tricky LG sections - a new explanation

Postby bartleby » Sun Dec 12, 2010 3:02 pm

You're delusional.

bigkahuna2020
Posts: 494
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 2:12 am

Re: The tricky LG sections - a new explanation

Postby bigkahuna2020 » Sun Dec 12, 2010 3:05 pm

They weren't anything new really. I thought they were super hard but I suck at LG

Sandro
Posts: 2526
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:12 am

Re: The tricky LG sections - a new explanation

Postby Sandro » Sun Dec 12, 2010 3:11 pm

I've been thinking alot about this too, how a hard/new LG section would effect the curve.


Even with a normal LG section a large portion of LSAT takers will miss abunch, we tend to forget that while most of our scores on here range in the 160+s, there are a large number of test takers who do not prep, who have no idea what a grouping game is, and who have no real method to attack these games. An increase in difficulty in games does not change their score as much as ours because they are already missing a ton. A "prepped" taker facing these new games will see a much larger increase in wrong answers.

To me this seems bad for people who prepare for the LSAT. We could debate all day about this, but I think trying to diminish the returns that buying a 30 dollar LGB and LRB and dedicating hard hours to studying is misguided. Obviously a test taker will probably score higher if he/she took a 1500 Kaplan course than a non prepper. But TLS has shown that on a VERY limited budget you can prep just as effectively as the $1500+ course.

This is why we have so many people on TLS about to /selves over these LG - they are looking at huge increase in wrong answers compared to the masses who might see their usual -10 go to a -12 or something.

Sandro
Posts: 2526
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:12 am

Re: The tricky LG sections - a new explanation

Postby Sandro » Sun Dec 12, 2010 3:15 pm

and please spare the "i thought the windows/conferences game was easy! lolz"

58932ugahoige
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:23 am

Re: The tricky LG sections - a new explanation

Postby 58932ugahoige » Sun Dec 12, 2010 3:19 pm

People who are less prepared typically get their logic games answers correct but wind up running out of time. I think that extremely time consuming games are the real killer. For someone who went in order, I doubt they got even 2-3 questions into the third game before panic mode/guessing kicked in.


Just my thoughts. Really, really hard games hit the top people--and I don't think these games were crazy, just time consuming--and really long games with minimal writing room will hit the people in the middle/bottom.

User avatar
2014
Posts: 5831
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

Re: The tricky LG sections - a new explanation

Postby 2014 » Sun Dec 12, 2010 3:20 pm

There were still 2 sequencing games, which the LGB specifically addresses. Imagine doing those without having touched LGB or any prep material? In that instance, the LGB was worth several extra questions right, which easily pays for the $30.

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: The tricky LG sections - a new explanation

Postby sundance95 » Sun Dec 12, 2010 3:21 pm

Your argument contains a huge presumption: to wit, that LSAC cares about the effects of test preparation, and cares enough to try and 'change' the test to counteract those effects. You need to provide more support than 'I thought this LG section was hard, amirite?!' for such a remarkable assumption to be taken seriously.

User avatar
DukeCornell
Posts: 279
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 3:19 am

Re: The tricky LG sections - a new explanation

Postby DukeCornell » Sun Dec 12, 2010 3:31 pm

Just my thoughts. Really, really hard games hit the top people--and I don't think these games were crazy, just time consuming--and really long games with minimal writing room will hit the people in the middle/bottom.


+1 The games weren't hard, they were time consuming. (2 of them)

Sandro
Posts: 2526
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:12 am

Re: The tricky LG sections - a new explanation

Postby Sandro » Sun Dec 12, 2010 3:34 pm

DukeCornell wrote:
Just my thoughts. Really, really hard games hit the top people--and I don't think these games were crazy, just time consuming--and really long games with minimal writing room will hit the people in the middle/bottom.


+1 The games weren't hard, they were time consuming. (2 of them)


Considering time is one of the top factors on the LSAT, why would you separate hard from time consuming? That's exactly why they were hard, because they were time consuming..

User avatar
DukeCornell
Posts: 279
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 3:19 am

Re: The tricky LG sections - a new explanation

Postby DukeCornell » Sun Dec 12, 2010 3:43 pm

Sandro777 wrote:
DukeCornell wrote:
Just my thoughts. Really, really hard games hit the top people--and I don't think these games were crazy, just time consuming--and really long games with minimal writing room will hit the people in the middle/bottom.


+1 The games weren't hard, they were time consuming. (2 of them)


Considering time is one of the top factors on the LSAT, why would you separate hard from time consuming? That's exactly why they were hard, because they were time consuming..


Dude...no! A hard game IMO is a game that takes (me) a few minutes to understand the wording, make inferences, determine the not laws, make sound hypothetical’s, or all of the above. These games were nothing like that. Sorry. My issue was time because I kept second guessing my steps. I wanted to make sure my answers were correct.

Sandro
Posts: 2526
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:12 am

Re: The tricky LG sections - a new explanation

Postby Sandro » Sun Dec 12, 2010 3:46 pm

DukeCornell wrote:
Sandro777 wrote:
DukeCornell wrote:
Just my thoughts. Really, really hard games hit the top people--and I don't think these games were crazy, just time consuming--and really long games with minimal writing room will hit the people in the middle/bottom.


+1 The games weren't hard, they were time consuming. (2 of them)


Considering time is one of the top factors on the LSAT, why would you separate hard from time consuming? That's exactly why they were hard, because they were time consuming..


Dude...no! A hard game IMO is a game that takes (me) a few minutes to understand the wording, make inferences, determine the not laws, make sound hypothetical’s, or all of the above. These games were nothing like that. Sorry. My issue was time- I kept second guessing my steps.


Your analysis would be correct if the LSAT was untimed, or faced paltry timing limits. There is no difference between a game that might require an awesome setup/inferences or one that requires a ton of hypos even if it is "easy" - both are hard under the ~8minute time frame you have to do them.

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

Re: The tricky LG sections - a new explanation

Postby fastforward » Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:46 pm

delusional wrote:The problem is that for prepared testers as a group, the games don't fit into the preparation. Furthermore, to prepared testers as a group, half wrong is not any sort of option. But since well-prepared testers are not a significant enough percentage of all test takers, the experimental difference between easily diagrammable games and not easily diagrammable games is not enough to keep the questions off the test - it's not even enough to create a great curve, hence the -11 on PT 57.

Does this make sense?


It does make sense, although I don't agree with all of it. Although I really like the Powerscore Bibles, and use them in my tutoring, and swear by the LR bible, I discourage my clients from relying on typing the games. The only truly must-do in diagramming is proper setup of conditional statements, and noting the order in a linear game (which came in handy recently for those who practiced that). I encourage clients to be intuitive and creative in developing their own style of diagramming. One of my most satisfying moments as a tutor came after June 2010 scores were released when I asked some of my clients to show me how they had set up the stones and mulch game. Each one had improvised a completely different approach but each had solved the game quickly on test day. I'm pretty certain that many test-takers who were dependent on typing and pre-set diagramming templates were thrown by that game. If you train yourself to think more holistically about what the game prompt is asking you to do, you will be more prepared to improvise a useful diagram AND to recognize major inferences ("the big deduction").

I've noticed many of yesterday's takers mentioned there was no room on the page to do the setup for one game. This is not the first time that's happened. I recently started blogging and, at the suggestion of my clients, one of my first posts was about the mauve dino game and why everyone thought it was so tough: --LinkRemoved--. I stress to my clients the need to wean themselves from scrap paper and be ready for the worst case scenario of almost no room to diagram.

I hope this helps those preparing for February and beyond.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: blackmamba8 and 17 guests