benito wrote:Ive taken every PT there is now, including all the new ones (except DEC of course) and I just don't get all the hype about "newer" LGs. The same skills that were necessary to tackle all the early games are the same ones I use to do all the new ones. There have always been some games that required a rule based approach or a local condition based approach based on the circumstances of the game. LSAC just comes up with ways to make things APPEAR new or different in an effort to make sure people have a holistic understanding of analytical reasoning and aren't just using memorized strategies. I guarantee you when the Dec PT comes out there will be all kinds of possible inferences there that people missed in the heat of battle. In my humble opinion, the LSAT has barely changed at all in the past ten years, some slightly easier some slightly harder as addressed by the relatively small differences in the curve.
While many may disagree on the difficulty in LG, there is something to be said of new style of games. I agree that LSAC is trying to test analytical reasoning in a purer form, not dumbed down to inferences and plugging. My question is have you written a real LSAT yet? Sometimes when LSAC disguises an inference well (such as stained glass in December), people miss it and that causes them to blow the entire game. If they had figured out the inference or it was given to them explicitly, no one would doubt their ability to complete it with a high level of accuracy.
I think the difficulty is more associated with how to approach games and the heavy-inference type questions that are showing up.