Logic Games Addendum

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

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby DukeCornell » Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:07 pm

:lol: @ The thought of a Logic Games Addendum...Hahahaha!

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

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby kkklick » Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:09 pm

With the exception of the conferences game, there were logical deductions to be made. Logic games is about formal logic when you consider the rules, and certain rules combined lead to inferences. So to suggest logic games is simply a puzzle theory, I would have to disagree with you.

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 1:12 pm

niederbomb wrote:
Shmuckluk wrote: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.


I think the whole idea that LG is 100% learnable is bullshit.

I spent two months doing almost nothing but work and studying LG. I did improve some, but not enough to come close to acing the section. The only thing I really improved during that time was...LR--which I have almost 100% ignored during all my LSAT prep. I just don't think spending 2 or 3 or 6 more months doing the same thing that didn't get results last time is worth the time and effort.

Thus, I will write an addendum and send it only to a few schools that I probably wouldn't get into anyway. That way, if the people on this board are correct about it hurting me, I have nothing to lose. If, on the other hand, TLS wisdom fails yet again, then I'll be glad I did it.

If I do rewrite, I think I will focus on perfecting LR and RC, rather than wasting even more time on LG. If you miss -10 on LG and none on the other sections, that's still a 170 on virtually all tests. I think a lot of the advice on this site is poison, and I would have been better all along if I had never made an account and had just followed my own intuition on everything LSAT/law school related.

Anyway, I won't reply any more to this thread. Since I'm done with the LSAT (for now) and probably attending either a Canadian/Hong Kong law school or no law school, I'm going to delete my TLS account. No sense wasting time on a site devoted to elevating the opinions of self-entitled douche trucks. I'll be laughing in about 5 years when half of you (or 70% of everyone who doesn't go to HYSCCN) are doing temporary document review, making the minimum payments on your credit cards, and defaulting on your mortgages while I'm enjoying myself in Hong Kong or Bay Street with a great job, great partnerships prospects, a better quality of life, free healthcare, and no crazy overspending government to worry about.


It took me close to a year of off and on intense studying (combination of a prep class/self-study/teaching for a prep company) for the LSAT to finally learn LG. I have so far considered that effort to be well worth it. To each his own though.

User avatar
AreJay711
Posts: 3406
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:51 pm

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby AreJay711 » Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:17 pm

I feel your pain: I went -4 on the rest of the test in October and -9 on LG (and all missed on the last two). At the same time, that's life and looking at some of the questions 1Ls were posting about their practice exams LG aren't completely pointless even if the timing make it a little more extreme than a law school exam. Also, to be honest, admissions people know that small differences in the LSAT are meaningless but they have to make decisions based on something.

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

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby niederbomb » Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:18 pm

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:
niederbomb wrote:
Shmuckluk wrote: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.


I think the whole idea that LG is 100% learnable is bullshit.

I spent two months doing almost nothing but work and studying LG. I did improve some, but not enough to come close to acing the section. The only thing I really improved during that time was...LR--which I have almost 100% ignored during all my LSAT prep. I just don't think spending 2 or 3 or 6 more months doing the same thing that didn't get results last time is worth the time and effort.

Thus, I will write an addendum and send it only to a few schools that I probably wouldn't get into anyway. That way, if the people on this board are correct about it hurting me, I have nothing to lose. If, on the other hand, TLS wisdom fails yet again, then I'll be glad I did it.

If I do rewrite, I think I will focus on perfecting LR and RC, rather than wasting even more time on LG. If you miss -10 on LG and none on the other sections, that's still a 170 on virtually all tests. I think a lot of the advice on this site is poison, and I would have been better all along if I had never made an account and had just followed my own intuition on everything LSAT/law school related.

Anyway, I won't reply any more to this thread. Since I'm done with the LSAT (for now) and probably attending either a Canadian/Hong Kong law school or no law school, I'm going to delete my TLS account. No sense wasting time on a site devoted to elevating the opinions of self-entitled douche trucks. I'll be laughing in about 5 years when half of you (or 70% of everyone who doesn't go to HYSCCN) are doing temporary document review, making the minimum payments on your credit cards, and defaulting on your mortgages while I'm enjoying myself in Hong Kong or Bay Street with a great job, great partnerships prospects, a better quality of life, free healthcare, and no crazy overspending government to worry about.


It took me close to a year of off and on intense studying (combination of a prep class/self-study/teaching for a prep company) for the LSAT to finally learn LG. I have so far considered that effort to be well worth it. To each his own though.


It might come to that, maybe not if I get in somewhere with my current score. Either way, TLS is a waste of time, a distraction from more important things (like doing all 62 LG sections over again for a retake).

I can't figure out how to delete my account short of posting undisclosed test questions. Damn it!

Sherrybaby
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 12:00 am

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby Sherrybaby » Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:18 pm

Shmuckluk wrote: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.



I feel like this was unnecessarily mean.

Hey, try it at one school (but probably not your first choice) and let us know how it goes. I'm always curious about how addendum's affect admissions.

But also tell us if you get like a 178 on the December LSAT. just cause that would be kind of funny (and awesome for you).

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 1:21 pm

niederbomb wrote:It might come to that, maybe not if I get in somewhere with my current score. Either way, TLS is a waste of time, a distraction from more important things (like doing all 62 LG sections over again for a retake).

I can't figure out how to delete my account short of posting undisclosed test questions. Damn it!


This deduction is credited.

User avatar
joebloe
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:02 am

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby joebloe » Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:39 pm

Definitely agree with Verklempt's assessment: you run a real risk of being perceived as whiny. Maybe if you have a real and substantial reason for underperforming, and there's no reason for the person reading the file to think that underperformance will be carried into LS, an addendum might be appropriate.

User avatar
deadpoetnsp
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:57 pm

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby deadpoetnsp » Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:44 pm

Let's put this in perspective.

Say I usually do -1 on the RC, but on the test I did -5 just because it was the first section and I'm not really a morning person. Do you really think the adcoms reading my app would even regard my "RC addendum" as worth 2 cents?

The excuses you have given can be similarly extended to the LR section too.

User avatar
FishOil
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby FishOil » Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:37 pm

Stop all the whining.

xmrmckenziex
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:26 pm

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby xmrmckenziex » Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:00 pm

Come on people. Look the LG was tougher than it usually is - GRANTED.

But, its not like they threw out a test in latin or something like that. Every game has been in a form that any prep class or prep book has shown you. The rules were just cleverly disguised to make someone put in a little more effort and be a little more intuitive. When Comparative Passages came out in RC I'm sure no one was writing RC Addendums and that was much "newer" and "different" in the scope of the test than any LG this month.

I feel your pain; but, I just think this might be the worst application idea that has ever existed.

User avatar
thecilent
Posts: 2506
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:55 pm

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby thecilent » Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:06 pm

I didn't read all of the thread.

But I thought you were joking at first, OP. You really being serious?

Also: if you can't master logic games do better than -11.. that's pretty bad.

RETAKE.

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

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby kkklick » Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:10 pm

The OP has banished himself, so the advice of this thread is being heard by a deaf ear.

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby robotclubmember » Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:34 pm

Richie Tenenbaum wrote: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.


Basically, I agree. And when you've got people taking the side of the guy wearing no shoes and one sock over your side, you gotta face the music buddy. It's a bad idea.

User avatar
glewz
Posts: 785
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 4:32 pm

Re: Logic Games Addendum

Postby glewz » Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:51 pm

niederbomb wrote:
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?



Law schools would assume that your score reflects a good amount of hard work - for you to write in an addendum that implies that you could have received a high LG score had you put in the effort would reflect badly on you in many ways.

For your 720 GMAT score, keep in mind that law schools don't really care about it. In fact, many admissions officers believe that if you had scored a YY% score on the LSAT, you should have naturally received a >YY% score on the GMAT. A 720 is around 94?93%? and a 165 is 92%.

Furthermore, a near perfect score on the Quant section is not even 99%. A perfect score of 51/51 is 98%, and a 50/51 is 93%, which shows that the Quant section is not that hard for the general GMAT test taker.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexandros, Instrumental, MSNbot Media, njames1961 and 8 guests