Logic Games Addendum

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

Logic Games Addendum

Postby niederbomb » Mon Dec 13, 2010 11:52 am

Since law schools have access to applicants' answer sheets, I was wondering if writing an addendum pointing out that nearly all my incorrect answers were in the logic games section (should it come to this) might help even a little bit.

RC is important. Law school includes lots of reading. LR is important. Legal analysis is based on logic. The ability to do puzzles is a lot less important.

Who would you rather admit? A 165 who missed -11 LG and -4 on the other 3 sections combined or a 168 who went -7 RC, -7 LR, -1 LG?

Regardless of the advice I get here, I'm going to try it on at least one reach school. No hurt on at least trying it on a school I probably wouldn't have gotten into anyway, right?

I just don't think puzzle ability is necessarily integral to the study of law. After all, the UK administers the LNAT, which is like the LSAT without puzzles. I don't think Magic Circle lawyers are that much more incompetent than Wall Street lawyers as a result.
Last edited by niederbomb on Mon Dec 13, 2010 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Gentleman
Posts: 670
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:25 am

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby The Gentleman » Mon Dec 13, 2010 11:56 am

No offense, but if I was reviewing your file I would totally lol at a logic games addendum. But give it a whirl and let us know how it goes.

Anomaly
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 7:55 pm

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby Anomaly » Mon Dec 13, 2010 11:56 am

Honestly, that sounds like a waste of time (yours and theirs). You aren't the only person who dominated the test and fell apart on logic games.

User avatar
homestyle28
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:48 pm

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby homestyle28 » Mon Dec 13, 2010 11:58 am

niederbomb wrote:I just don't think puzzle ability is necessarily integral to the study of law.


While I'm sure it never hurts to try and plenty of people agree with you, I doubt that any school is going to care that much. If schools didn't place some value on LGs they wouldn't be on the test.

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

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby KevinP » Mon Dec 13, 2010 11:58 am

Sadly most law schools only care about the final LSAT score because that is what determines their rankings. 168 w/ all misses in LG > even misses throughout w/ 165.

This coming from a guy who's screwed up LG big time and who is deciding to give up on law school this year, Dec (3rd try) killed me.

/self

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

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby niederbomb » Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:06 pm

The Gentleman wrote:No offense, but if I was reviewing your file I would totally lol at a logic games addendum. But give it a whirl and let us know how it goes.


Actually, I would lol too. But isn't making creative and logical arguments an important skill for a lawyer to have?

Due to my consistent high performance on LR and RC on almost all my PT's, as well as the real thing, I have little doubt of my ability to do well wherever I go to law school, and I don't see why they should either if everything is put in its proper perspective.

Sadly most law schools only care about the final LSAT score because that is what determines their rankings. 168 w/ all misses in LG > even misses throughout w/ 165.

This coming from a guy who's screwed up LG big time and who is deciding to give up on law school this year, Dec (3rd try) killed me.

/self


I know it wouldn't be a game changer. But it would be worth it if it helped even a little bit. Some schools tell you to write an addendum if you bombed the SAT (I got a perfect score on the ACT, so I can't do this) and subsequently performed well in undergrad. UG grades have almost nothing to do with law school performance, but LR/RC are extremely predictive of 1L grades. So wouldn't my situation present an even stronger case for an addendum than the former situation?

User avatar
The Gentleman
Posts: 670
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:25 am

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby The Gentleman » Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:10 pm

And FWIW, LSAC is essentially owned and operated by law schools. So if schools believed that logic games screw up the predictive validity of the LSAT, then they would change it.

Contrapositive:
- They have not changed it.
- Therefore schools believe that logic games are essential to the LSAT's predictive validity.

User avatar
3|ink
Posts: 7331
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby 3|ink » Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:12 pm

The Gentleman wrote:No offense, but if I [were] reviewing your file I would totally lol at a logic games addendum. But give it a whirl and let us know how it goes.

+1

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

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby niederbomb » Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:17 pm

The Gentleman wrote:And FWIW, LSAC is essentially owned and operated by law schools. So if schools believed that logic games screw up the predictive validity of the LSAT, then they would change it.

Contrapositive:
- They have not changed it.
- Therefore schools believe that logic games are essential to the LSAT's predictive validity.


I guess the best way to weaken your argument would be to cast doubt on the premise that LSAC is essentially owned and operated by law schools.

Also, perhaps LG is meant to test something else (like logic) but occasionally screws people for other reasons that are irrelevant to the study of law (like atrocious spatial ability or discalculia).

Why don't UK law schools require a test that tests puzzle-solving (or spatial) ability? The LNAT only has RC and LR. If LG really is essential, then why doesn't every law school in the world test applicants on their ability to solve puzzles?

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

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby KevinP » Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:18 pm

niederbomb wrote:
The Gentleman wrote:No offense, but if I was reviewing your file I would totally lol at a logic games addendum. But give it a whirl and let us know how it goes.


Actually, I would lol too. But isn't making creative and logical arguments an important skill for a lawyer to have?

Due to my consistent high performance on LR and RC on almost all my PT's, as well as the real thing, I have little doubt of my ability to do well wherever I go to law school, and I don't see why they should either if everything is put in its proper perspective.

Sadly most law schools only care about the final LSAT score because that is what determines their rankings. 168 w/ all misses in LG > even misses throughout w/ 165.

This coming from a guy who's screwed up LG big time and who is deciding to give up on law school this year, Dec (3rd try) killed me.

/self


I know it wouldn't be a game changer. But it would be worth it if it helped even a little bit. Some schools tell you to write an addendum if you bombed the SAT (I got a perfect score on the ACT, so I can't do this) and subsequently performed well in undergrad. UG grades have almost nothing to do with law school performance, but LR/RC are extremely predictive of 1L grades. So wouldn't my situation present an even stronger case for an addendum than the former situation?


Possibly... I'm mainly speculating here but pointing out that the LSAT indicates that you aren't very good at analytical skills could hurt you as well. I know it doesn't seem very reasonable but that's how it is.

krad
Posts: 1897
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:33 am

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby krad » Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:19 pm

3|ink wrote:
The Gentleman wrote:No offense, but if I [were] reviewing your file I would totally lol at a logic games addendum. But give it a whirl and let us know how it goes.

+1

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

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby Sandro » Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:23 pm

Can anyone tell me that with reliability that the person who scores a 165 because of missing ~6-8 games questions is going to be outperformed in law school by the 170 who went -0 on games while missing even more in LR/RC? How can LSAC put forth a test where 1 mistake could cost you ~6 questions ? Messing up one rule or a diagram or missing an inference is the equivalent to missing 6 LR/RC questions ? Don't think so.

I dont want to come off whining, but I probably do. Seeing as LSAC is now introducing new games that dont fit the mold of past tests, IMO trying to force takers to rely on innate ability rather than prep, lets look at what that means. I would bet that most people struggled mightily with Dec10 LG if they hadn't prepped. Those freaky people who can pickup and LG with 0 prep and bang out a -0 imo have brains that are wired to the sort of plug/puzzle pieces/mathish. Is that really a skillset that should be given equal weight to say, READING COMPREHENSION?
Last edited by Sandro on Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
3|ink
Posts: 7331
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby 3|ink » Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:25 pm

I'm sorry but an LG addendum is the worst idea ever. Not only will your complaints about LG be dismissed as silly, but this addendum is sure to reflect poorly on you.

Even if the fact that LG isn't used elsewhere does mean that it isn't essential, it still may be a concept that law schools want the LSAC to test.

I don't think the LSAC is owned by law schools. I was told that it is a private entity. However, the LSAT was designed to test the concepts that law schools want tested. Otherwise, law schools wouldn't recognize the LSAT scores and nobody would pay to take the test.

ren2011
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:06 pm

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby ren2011 » Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:28 pm

Honestly, LSAC puts LG in our exam because the average test-taker, who doesn't do 100000 practice tests like TLS folk, will probably bomb it. Most of us are familiar with LR and (especially) RC type exam passages. LG isn't that way. It separates the "best" test takers from the "good" test takers.

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

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby niederbomb » Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:31 pm

I'd like to point out once again that many other countries don't test puzzle-solving ability. What is so different about American law that LG is important here but not in the UK or anywhere else?

I also aced the GMAT Quantitative section when I took it last month (total: 720), so I don't think my weakness is analytical skills. It's probably spatial skills, which are even less relevant to law school.

User avatar
Osos
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby Osos » Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:34 pm

I don't think the games section is designed to show your ability at solving puzzles or your spatial awareness. I'm terrible at reading maps, but am pretty good at LG. The games section forces test takers to keep multiple rules in their heads at a time, make inferences, and pay attention to detail, all while under pressure. These things seem like they'd be good to assess for future lawyers.

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

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby niederbomb » Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:35 pm

ren2011 wrote:Honestly, LSAC puts LG in our exam because the average test-taker, who doesn't do 100000 practice tests like TLS folk, will probably bomb it. Most of us are familiar with LR and (especially) RC type exam passages. LG isn't that way. It separates the "best" test takers from the "good" test takers.


Still, if LG is the most improvable section (for most people anyway), it would seem that it tests aptitude less than the other sections. I know people who have done 50 PT's and still miss like -10 on RC. Most people improve a lot on logic games through studying, including me. My threshold was about 0, though, so big improvement meant getting consistent 17 or 18/23.

If something tested aptitude, it would make sense that you couldn't improve it through practice, right?

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

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby 58932ugahoige » Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:36 pm

Writing in and telling a law school why 25% of the entry exam they use is stupid and why you're more worthwhile than the other people who didn't bomb the section is equally as inane. The people in Law--many who have written the LSAT--will realize it stinks of desperation. Throw in that logic games is widely considered to be the most learnable section, and they will likely think you just haven't worked hard enough.

Also, it isn't "puzzle" solving, it's the ability to hold multiple pieces of information in your head and apply them to a situation; this is important in law.

Just learn LG and rewrite.
Last edited by 58932ugahoige on Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
3|ink
Posts: 7331
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby 3|ink » Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:36 pm

niederbomb wrote:I'd like to point out once again that many other countries don't test puzzle-solving ability. What is so different about American law that LG is important here but not in the UK or anywhere else?

I also aced the GMAT Quantitative section when I took it last month (total: 720), so I don't think my weakness is analytical skills. It's probably spatial skills, which are even less relevant to law school.


Your opinion regarding the relevance of LG and spatial skills is irrelevant to the people who would be reading your addendum. Short of a position based statistical evidence provided by a study you probably don't have the means, resources or credentials to fund or conduct on your own, any argument you make against the relevance of logic games will be disregarded. I'm sorry, but I'm telling you how it is so you don't make this terrible mistake.

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

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby Sandro » Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:48 pm

not to try to start a revolution I think it would be fascinating if LSAC put out something detailing LG's place in the LSAT as a test that attempts to predict law school success probability. I wonder how it relates to LR and RC.

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

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby niederbomb » Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:51 pm

/
Last edited by niederbomb on Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby Sandro » Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:04 pm

I went from -11 on Sep09 and just bombing every LG section to a steady -2/-3/-4 average in the 40s and early 50s. Some of my highest scores were from these tests that had decent games that I could attack.

Then came the 50s and switches to these inane games like Stained Glass/Conferences, and I missed -8 on oct and probably just as many in December. If LG was replaced by another RC section I would be in the high 160s, low 170s instantly.

Thats what i dont get about LG. I missed almost 50% of my wrong answers in Oct because of LG. Is it because I'm a stupid dummy? THen how did I go -1/-2-3 on the late 40s/early 50s? I dont get how making games like Stained Glass/Conferences fits into LSAC's scheme.

User avatar
Richie Tenenbaum
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:17 am

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby Richie Tenenbaum » Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:05 pm

The best advice? It's a little late for this now, but you need to stop bitching and retake. If you are set on applying this year, that means you will have to rely on the Feb test to help with waitlists and possibly tell the super-reaches that will reject a 165 pretty fast that you are retaking. If you can consistently get less than 5-6 wrong on LR/RC combined, you can get AT least to -2 or less on LG (assuming you don't have a brain defect that robs you of most all spatial reasoning). I have absolute shit spatial reasoning, was absolutely terrible on games initially and can get between 0 and -2 now because of pure repetition and practice. If you can't power your way to 170+ the fault is with you, not the test.

Arguing through an addendum that you should be considered a special snowflake isn't clever, it's more like to be viewed as annoying. The LSAT is one of the best standardized tests out there. A law school is going to trust LSAC's judgment over yours. In addition, breaking down applicants into LR/LG/RC is simply not possible since the test AS A WHOLE is standardized, NOT the individual sections. A person from Dec. 2009 would be boned when putting more emphasis on RC and LR since LR was considered substantially more difficult on that test. The trend in years past was to balance a tests difficulty in either having a really nasty LG section or a really nasty RC passage. Then they started making both sections be nasty and have a more forgiving curve. How do law schools try to interpret all these data sets when comparing different tests with different curves? Simple answer? They won't even try.

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

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby 58932ugahoige » Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:05 pm

I like how the asshole who isn't smart enough to do logic games gets on the high horse.

Have fun telling people how smart you are, even though you can't prove it.

User avatar
verklempt
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 6:59 pm

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby verklempt » Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:06 pm

As someone who has worked in admissions, I would never make excuses. If you have a bona fide issue (a documented handicap, or a history of doing badly on certain kinds of tests, then succeeding in the areas supposedly measured by those tests) that might be worth mentioning. Focus on being as solid as you can in the rest of your application.

That said, I've been reading recently about the connection between LSATs and law school grades (not very strong) and legal profession success (non-existent). I don't remember LG being on the test when I took it many years ago, and (having worked extensively with lawyers) I would posit that the mental gymnastics required by LG don't come into play very often, if ever. I might even suggest that the kinds of skills that help you ace an LG section are 180 degrees from the skills that serve you well as a lawyer, where slow and steady generally wins the race. But for now, LG are part of the game. In time, LSAC may replace them; the test today is very different from the test 20 years ago.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 180orDie, batlaw, BobBoblaw, Elyane, SunDevil14, ThatOneAfrican and 18 guests