Old PT Logic Games Are Relatively Useless?

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
ChillTomG

New
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 5:32 pm

Old PT Logic Games Are Relatively Useless?

Postby ChillTomG » Fri May 29, 2015 12:25 pm

Hi guys, I have been taking some old(ish) PTs for practice. It seems that the older Logic Games are substantially different from the more modern ones. Specifically, the modern games sections seem to fall in precisely one of about six categories. There seems to be much more variety in the older games, where you may have oddballs like October 1991 game #3 (Hannah visiting cities, this relied on some small ability to add numbers).

Is this an accurate assessment, and is it pointless to even review older games that don't fit into the commonly accepted mold? (By the way, games now seem to be significantly harder, for example October 1991 game #1 was so easy it was unnerving).

User avatar
TheodoreKGB

Bronze
Posts: 500
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 3:46 pm

Re: Old PT Logic Games Are Relatively Useless?

Postby TheodoreKGB » Fri May 29, 2015 12:42 pm

.
Last edited by TheodoreKGB on Wed Jun 03, 2015 12:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Joscellin

Gold
Posts: 1514
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 1:40 am

Re: Old PT Logic Games Are Relatively Useless?

Postby Joscellin » Fri May 29, 2015 12:52 pm

They can be pretty good at getting you ready for the aforementioned curveballs, and the basic rules for sequencing, grouping, in/out, etc games still apply and are helpful.

Fred Norris

Bronze
Posts: 192
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 5:18 pm

Re: Old PT Logic Games Are Relatively Useless?

Postby Fred Norris » Sat May 30, 2015 4:19 pm

If you've started studying well in advance - and that should be the case - you have nothing to lose by doing these games. But yes, they will probably be 99% useless to you. There is a psychology boost of knowing you have gone above and beyond in your studying. There really aren't that many useless games. Maybe around 10 or so. And there are also important games in the earlier preptests. There are some great sequencing games. Also, PT1 has a great circle game, and those do appear once in a blue moon and well worth practicing.

If you are pressed for time, I can give you a list of games you can skip if so desired.

User avatar
McGruff

Bronze
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:16 pm

Re: Old PT Logic Games Are Relatively Useless?

Postby McGruff » Sat May 30, 2015 6:38 pm

You should know how to solve an oddball game by whipping out lots and lots of hypos quickly, IIRC this was the best thing about the old games--a lot of them were very weird and less formulaic. These sorts of anomalies still pop up from time to time so it pays to be prepared.

PoopNpants

Silver
Posts: 854
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2014 9:40 pm

Re: Old PT Logic Games Are Relatively Useless?

Postby PoopNpants » Sat May 30, 2015 6:59 pm

Fred Norris wrote:If you've started studying well in advance - and that should be the case - you have nothing to lose by doing these games. But yes, they will probably be 99% useless to you. There is a psychology boost of knowing you have gone above and beyond in your studying. There really aren't that many useless games. Maybe around 10 or so. And there are also important games in the earlier preptests. There are some great sequencing games. Also, PT1 has a great circle game, and those do appear once in a blue moon and well worth practicing.

If you are pressed for time, I can give you a list of games you can skip if so desired.


What do you think of the miscellanous games in the PT 1-20 cambridge packet? I was doing some of those the other day and some were tough and weird as shit, like one game involved mixing chemicals with 4 different colors. threw me off bad

User avatar
Jeffort

Gold
Posts: 1888
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: Old PT Logic Games Are Relatively Useless?

Postby Jeffort » Sat May 30, 2015 7:38 pm

If you're shooting for a high score (160+), it would be a mistake to assume that any of the old oddball games aren't important to study and can safely be skipped/ignored. While it is true that oddball games similar to any of the weird ones from the early PTs administered in the 1990's have only appeared on a few LSATs since year 2000, they still do occasionally pop up unexpectedly and will likely appear again unexpectedly sometime in the future.

The few administered LSATs since 1999/2000 that contained an oddball game ruined the day for many test takers that ignored/failed to study the old oddball games under the faulty assumption that they were irrelevant/nothing like them would ever appear again. The most recent occurrence of LSAC ambushing unprepared test takers by unexpectedly reincarnating and administering an old oddball game type was last year on the June 2014 LSAT in which another rare pattern game type appeared and wrecked many peoples scores.

Historically, LSAC has proven to have a nasty habit of occasionally and seemingly randomly dusting off an old hard/weird oddball game/game type that wrecked people in the distant past and using it as inspiration to write another similar oddball game for administration. It hasn't happened a huge amount of times through modern LSAT history but the February and June 2014 LSATs proved that LSAC's nasty "Let's ambush everyone with an old weird game type nobody will be expecting and that most people have never seen or studied before" habit is still alive and well.

When will another unusual game/game type appear? Only time will tell, it may be several years from now or could be soon. If you don't want to gamble with your score and risk having to re-take just because you got unlucky by getting a LG section with an unusual/old/oddball game on test day, drill, study and review all the old oddball LG's to make sure you're prepared for anything they might throw at you. There is no LSAC rule or policy that says they're only going to administer conventional games/game types on future LSAT's, so don't bank on the assumption that just because a certain game is old, weird, one of kind, etc., that nothing like it will ever appear again.

The odds are low that you'll encounter an unfamiliar/oddball game type, but they are not zero. It can happen again like last years June test proved, so it's best to be prepared for anything if you're shooting for a high score.

ChillTomG

New
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 5:32 pm

Re: Old PT Logic Games Are Relatively Useless?

Postby ChillTomG » Sun May 31, 2015 4:55 pm

Thanks for all of the helpful responses. I may be alone in this, but I am sincerely hoping that LSAC throws in a bizarre game or four. I tend to find these easier than the newer ones since they usually rely on easy but not commonly practiced inferences. The Hannah 1991 game comes to mind (and is on the PowerScore top 10 hardest games list). If that helped to make the curve even one point more generous, I would be ecstatic.

ilikebaseball

Gold
Posts: 4102
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 3:04 am

Re: Old PT Logic Games Are Relatively Useless?

Postby ilikebaseball » Sun May 31, 2015 10:40 pm

i mean, its still good to exercise those muscles. It couldn't hurt. The older games were harder.

User avatar
Oskosh

Silver
Posts: 1029
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2014 3:18 pm

Re: Old PT Logic Games Are Relatively Useless?

Postby Oskosh » Sun May 31, 2015 10:53 pm

They're relatively useless insofar as they won't mirror the LGs as precisely as more recent tests will. The current tests have become more formulaic, and only appear to be slightly weird. In reality, they are all pretty much basic sequencing, ordering, 3D ordering, grouping, order-grouping, and pattern games. As one of the users commented, the June 2014 LSAT LG section was not hard. The RC and LR was difficult in that test, but the final game was the easiest to solve, as you had only two available templates.

User avatar
jumbocolumbo

Bronze
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 11:54 am

Re: Old PT Logic Games Are Relatively Useless?

Postby jumbocolumbo » Sun May 31, 2015 11:10 pm

.



Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum�

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 6 guests