My Analysis of the "New" LSATs (PT50-62) Forum

[rubydandun]

Logic Games
are definitely in some ways easier than the LG from the mid 90's, in that you don't need to make as many deductions up front, and that the deductions aren't as deep. As someone has posted here before, it's become more of a "plug and chug" contest - how quickly and accurately can you react to what's thrown at you?

In every LG from 55-on, LSAC tries to throw you some sort of "curve ball" to mess with you. Be it an unconventional ordering game (e.g., unintuitive ordering) or a slight wrinkle in the rules (Statistics at 9am, statistics at 3pm), they want to 1) unsettle you 2) make you panic 3) make you make a leap and make a deduction from the setup alone.

There are also more "trap" questions that are there just to waste your time (think rule substitution questions that only popped up in the 50's).

The fourth game is generally always screwy in some way, and is the one most likely to have some unique aspect/twist to it.

LR:

WITHOUT a doubt, the LR in the late 50's are much, much more difficult than the LR of old. Abstract stimuli, tons of sophisticated "trap" answer choices that seem to be designed specifically for people who have been training to spot them, and just generally more difficult questions. Very deep and advanced testing of suff/nec and formal logic as well.


reading comp
Considerably more difficult, in that you have to treat the entire passage like a long LR (e.g., constantly ask yourself what assumptions are being made, the logical strength of the evidence used to reach conclusions, using your imagination to infer things about the different viewpoints and perspectives in the passages).


My (conspiratorial) conclusion is that LSAC is trying to react to people who prepare in order to level the playing field for those who either can't afford (monetarily or time wise) test-prep. Scoring a 170 in 2010 is more difficult than what it took to score a 170 is 2000. Anyone disagree with this?

[justbubbles]

Logic Games
are definitely in some ways easier than the LG from the mid 90's, in that you don't need to make as many deductions up front, and that the deductions aren't as deep. As someone has posted here before, it's become more of a "plug and chug" contest - how quickly and accurately can you react to what's thrown at you?

In every LG from 55-on, LSAC tries to throw you some sort of "curve ball" to mess with you. Be it an unconventional ordering game (e.g., unintuitive ordering) or a slight wrinkle in the rules (Statistics at 9am, statistics at 3pm), they want to 1) unsettle you 2) make you panic 3) make you make a leap and make a deduction from the setup alone.

There are also more "trap" questions that are there just to waste your time (think rule substitution questions that only popped up in the 50's).

The fourth game is generally always screwy in some way, and is the one most likely to have some unique aspect/twist to it.

LR:

WITHOUT a doubt, the LR in the late 50's are much, much more difficult than the LR of old. Abstract stimuli, tons of sophisticated "trap" answer choices that seem to be designed specifically for people who have been training to spot them, and just generally more difficult questions. Very deep and advanced testing of suff/nec and formal logic as well.


reading comp
Considerably more difficult, in that you have to treat the entire passage like a long LR (e.g., constantly ask yourself what assumptions are being made, the logical strength of the evidence used to reach conclusions, using your imagination to infer things about the different viewpoints and perspectives in the passages).


My (conspiratorial) conclusion is that LSAC is trying to react to people who prepare in order to level the playing field for those who either can't afford (monetarily or time wise) test-prep. Scoring a 170 in 2010 is more difficult than what it took to score a 170 is 2000. Anyone disagree with this?

+1

That's what I've been trying to say all along.

One caution, though: if someone who's rusty on LG, then chances are they won't find it to be 'easier' per se.

As for LRs, the last few ones are just brutal. This is dragging my score down. PT50 and below I'd get almost perfect or maybe -1, -2, -3. On the later one I've been getting as high as -7.

And for RC, seems like time is still my worst enemy, but I seem to manage.

[rubydandun]

Logic Games
are definitely in some ways easier than the LG from the mid 90's, in that you don't need to make as many deductions up front, and that the deductions aren't as deep. As someone has posted here before, it's become more of a "plug and chug" contest - how quickly and accurately can you react to what's thrown at you?

In every LG from 55-on, LSAC tries to throw you some sort of "curve ball" to mess with you. Be it an unconventional ordering game (e.g., unintuitive ordering) or a slight wrinkle in the rules (Statistics at 9am, statistics at 3pm), they want to 1) unsettle you 2) make you panic 3) make you make a leap and make a deduction from the setup alone.

There are also more "trap" questions that are there just to waste your time (think rule substitution questions that only popped up in the 50's).

The fourth game is generally always screwy in some way, and is the one most likely to have some unique aspect/twist to it.

LR:

WITHOUT a doubt, the LR in the late 50's are much, much more difficult than the LR of old. Abstract stimuli, tons of sophisticated "trap" answer choices that seem to be designed specifically for people who have been training to spot them, and just generally more difficult questions. Very deep and advanced testing of suff/nec and formal logic as well.


reading comp
Considerably more difficult, in that you have to treat the entire passage like a long LR (e.g., constantly ask yourself what assumptions are being made, the logical strength of the evidence used to reach conclusions, using your imagination to infer things about the different viewpoints and perspectives in the passages).


My (conspiratorial) conclusion is that LSAC is trying to react to people who prepare in order to level the playing field for those who either can't afford (monetarily or time wise) test-prep. Scoring a 170 in 2010 is more difficult than what it took to score a 170 is 2000. Anyone disagree with this?

+1

That's what I've been trying to say all along.

One caution, though: if someone who's rusty on LG, then chances are they won't find it to be 'easier' per se.

As for LRs, the last few ones are just brutal. This is dragging my score down. PT50 and below I'd get almost perfect or maybe -1, -2, -3. On the later one I've been getting as high as -7.

And for RC, seems like time is still my worst enemy, but I seem to manage.

I'm SO HAPPY someone agrees with me on the LR getting harder thing. It's almost like LR is designed to test your natural reasoning ability instead of learned techniques (hiding and obscuring the argument structure, obscuring S/N conditions, making formal logic problems so gnarly to diagram that you HAVE to actually think it through conceptually 'all primates are this, so it COULD be true that some primates are xyz')

Bastards!

[rubydandun]

I have very high accuracy on RC and used to routinely get -1 or -2 back in the day, but on these new passages (55+) this happens to me almost every time:

Finish first 3 passages with -1 or -2, get to last passage with 7 minutes:

GET OWNED on the last passage (talking -4 or -5). It's bizarre. I can almost swear that the last RC passage in the modern tests are generally (not always) very technical and detail oriented (legal contingency fees, behavior incentive game, etc)

Any suggestions?

ALSO: Main Point questions are very freaking tricky,, always get it down to 2 choices and want to cry.

/rant

[bball1997]

I'm not sure if I agree with you that LG's are "easier." At least for me LG's are entirely a timing issue. During the 40's I was consistently finishing games sections in 20-25 minutes and there are several in the 50's that I ran out of time and had to guess on a question or two.

[justbubbles]

OP:

Rant away, let it out! You'll feel better!

No, but seriously, it's true. In fact, that has pretty much been the universal consensus on and off TLS, for a while now.

I also agree with you about "Global/Main Point" questions in RC. Some of the earlier ones, I'd get right away. But on of the latest ones, I got PWN3D.

Did PT58 RC last night. The reading was fairly easy and the questions seemed straight forward, but I got destroyed with all the wrong answers.

[rubydandun]

I'm not sure if I agree with you that LG's are "easier." At least for me LG's are entirely a timing issue. During the 40's I was consistently finishing games sections in 20-25 minutes and there are several in the 50's that I ran out of time and had to guess on a question or two.

When i say easier, i mean in comparison to the GNARLY ones in the 90's, especially some of the PT's in the 20's and 30's. The LG are still a pain in the ass.

I def have trouble finishing as well, but LG are my weakest section.

[rubydandun]

OP:

Rant away, let it out! You'll feel better!

No, but seriously, it's true. In fact, that has pretty much been the universal consensus on and off TLS, for a while now.

I also agree with you about "Global/Main Point" questions in RC. Some of the earlier ones, I'd get right away. But on of the latest ones, I got PWN3D.

Did PT58 RC last night. The reading was fairly easy and the questions seemed straight forward, but I got destroyed with all the wrong answers.

Thanks

Last part of the rant - one of the LR sections is always definitely, definitely harder than the other.

[justbubbles]

I know someone who had 3 LR sections in a row on the last LSAT!!!

Sec 1: LR
Sec 2: LR (experimental)
Sec 3: LR
Sec 4: LG
Sec 5: RC

Ouch.

If I have the misfortune of getting that, I will be so screwed.

[bubbletea]

.[/quote]


I'm SO HAPPY someone agrees with me on the LR getting harder thing. It's almost like LR is designed to test your natural reasoning ability instead of learned techniques (hiding and obscuring the argument structure, obscuring S/N conditions, making formal logic problems so gnarly to diagram that you HAVE to actually think it through conceptually 'all primates are this, so it COULD be true that some primates are xyz')

Bastards![/quote]

Oh how terrible! A test that tests NATURAL REASONING ABILITY that may actually help you as an attorney rather than LEARNED TECHNIQUES that will help you take a test! For shame!

[rubydandun]

.

I'm SO HAPPY someone agrees with me on the LR getting harder thing. It's almost like LR is designed to test your natural reasoning ability instead of learned techniques (hiding and obscuring the argument structure, obscuring S/N conditions, making formal logic problems so gnarly to diagram that you HAVE to actually think it through conceptually 'all primates are this, so it COULD be true that some primates are xyz')

Bastards![/quote]

Oh how terrible! A test that tests NATURAL REASONING ABILITY that may actually help you as an attorney rather than LEARNED TECHNIQUES that will help you take a test! For shame![/quote]

Seriously wtf!? Hey i agree that the test being so learnable is absurd, but I'm sure the studiers will get what's coming ot them in law school.

[mattviphky]

three LR in a row would suck. I think for the next LSAT my dream test would be LR,LG,RC,LR,LG...yeah, that would be awesome. I don't know about LR, cause I have always been bad at those, but I went from missing 3 avg to missing 6 avg on the newer RCs

[Yeshia90]

I know someone who had 3 LR sections in a row on the last LSAT!!!

Sec 1: LR
Sec 2: LR (experimental)
Sec 3: LR
Sec 4: LG
Sec 5: RC

Ouch.

If I have the misfortune of getting that, I will be so screwed.

Oh, Christ.

I honestly think that I could gain as many 5 points if I get a LG experimental as opposed to an LR. I get burned out on LR, especially if I have to do two in a row. For me, games is a break. The perfect layout would be LR LG RC LG LR.

[sanetruth]

I honestly think that I could gain as many 5 points if I get a LG experimental as opposed to an LR. I get burned out on LR, especially if I have to do two in a row. For me, games is a break. The perfect layout would be LR LG RC LG LR.

I felt the same way. But beware...I had two LG sections on my test and I was so confident that I killed the first one, that when I turned to the 5th section and saw a second I almost panicked: "now i have to get two LG sections perfect." It will psyche you out.

In the end it worked out though. I killed both. That's the best part about games, you know when you got every question right.

[rinkrat19]

I know someone who had 3 LR sections in a row on the last LSAT!!!

Sec 1: LR
Sec 2: LR (experimental)
Sec 3: LR
Sec 4: LG
Sec 5: RC

Ouch.

If I have the misfortune of getting that, I will be so screwed.

Oh, Christ.

I honestly think that I could gain as many 5 points if I get a LG experimental as opposed to an LR. I get burned out on LR, especially if I have to do two in a row. For me, games is a break. The perfect layout would be LR LG RC LG LR.

I think LR LG RC LG LR is what I had (or not far off) on the Oct 2010 test. Having two LG sections was fantastic, because at least they're a little "fun," as opposed to slogging through RC passages. Got my best LG score ever (-1), too, because the first (experimental) LG got me warmed up.

[KevinP]

Agreed for the most part. I do feel, however, that the LGs in the 60s are making a comeback. The LGs in the 40s and 50s took less time to complete compared to some of the 60s LGs. It isn't that they becoming harder, just more time consuming.

[pkrtbx]

ALSO: Main Point questions are very freaking tricky,, always get it down to 2 choices and want to cry.

/rant

+1

I think that LG are a lot more time consuming and intimidating than they were in the 40s. RC passages aren't much harder but the inference questions are SO effing nitpicky and many of them feel like pure guesswork, it drives me insane. LR I actually don't think is bad at all, but that has always been my best section.