Relative Difficulty of Logic Games Forum

[The Areopagite]

Perhaps this has been asked before. Forgive me if so. Is there consensus that the LG sections from the 1990s are - in general and for most persons - more difficult than those from more recent years? This has been my impression when comparing the PTs in 10 More Actual (i.e. 19-29) to those in Next 10 Actual and later. I have yet to seriously take up the LGs in the 60s.

For those that have taken the LSAT in the past year or so: in your view, did you find the LGs on more recent tests easier than the LGs on older tests?

For all: any other insights into the relative difficult of LGs by LSAT-era?

Cheers

[magickware]

My general impression-

Most people cut their teeth regarding LG with the earlier (pre-40s) tests, so those who find LG in the 40s-50s easier than the earlier ones are probably just getting better at the test.

But I would think that the games in the 60s, 62 and onward in particular iirc, are tougher.

There are always one or two games that get complicated, unlike earlier PTs where you can have four games that are easy, and there are simply more games that require hypos. Very few game-winning inferences can be made, and that takes up a lot of time.

[bp shinners]

Some of the earlier games are weird. They've standardized them as the test has matured.

[Otunga]

I don't know. Once I saw improvement in the Cambridge drilling packets, which are all older games, I also saw corresponding LG improvement in the modern games (50s and onwards, excluding 40s from 'modern'). So for me, I don't see either era as more or less difficult than the other.

One qualification: I'm not at all referencing the peculiar game types that you may have seen in the older sections or in the Cambridge Misc. packet. I'm just saying that I don't see much difference between the older ordering/grouping/hybrid games and the newer ordering/grouping/hybrid games.