Top Law Schools

Greetings!

My name is Ron Gore. I'm a senior instructor and content developer for PowerScore, and I'm excited to announce that PowerScore will now interact regularly on the TLS Forum. We're here to provide free assistance for the TLS community and to help students troubleshoot as they prepare for the LSAT and the law school admissions process.

So, please ask away. If you have questions about specific PowerScore products, or about why I think PowerScore is the premier LSAT test prep company, please PM me. It's our intention to keep this area clear of overt marketing or product placement, with a few exceptions. Most notably, if a question is asked on this forum to which there is already an exhaustive answer on PowerScore's internal forum, I'll likely post a link to that explanation for the sake of efficiency.

I look forward to answering your questions and helping you in any way I can. So, how can I help you today?

Best Wishes,

Ron

My colleague Jon Denning has prepared an quick overview of the logic games from the September LSAT, just released yesterday. Here were his preliminary thoughts on the four games:

"As a general impression I'd say that this was, if not a relatively easy games section, at least an extremely predictable one, which is welcome news after a Circular game in Feb 2014 and a Pattern game in June 2014.

Here are my thoughts:

1. Basic Linear game--five songs ordered sequentially on a CD. In the first game the T/R/S and W/R/T sequencing rules proved to be the most difficult to manage, as they gave a few possible orders for the three variables in each. Essentially both then create impossible sequences of (1) R > T > S; (2) S > T > R; (3) R > W > T; (4) T > W > R. These can then be used to eliminate answer choices as you work through the 7 questions, and that should make the game much easier to manage. Not a bad way to start test day!

2. Advanced Linear game--five speakers in two rooms, speaking at either 1, 2, or 3. The game initially appears more uncertain than it actually is, as you aren't told which room holds the speech at 3. However you can balance this by adding a sixth variable "speaker"--I used "O"--and showing that one of the 3 PM speeches is given by that variable. So it becomes a 6 into 6, balanced setup.

The key inference here is that if Z must be equal to or ahead of both X and Y, then Z must give a speech at 1 PM: Z cannot take the remaining 3 PM spot (no room after), nor can Z be at 2 because placing X and Y at 2 and 3 and filling those times means M and L (the only people left) are at 1, and that can't happen as they must be in the same room (rule 1). So Z is always at 1, and then the game is pretty easy. This also answers question 13, the rule substitution question!

3. Grouping game--five buildings assigned to three families. The numerical distribution possibilities are the key to this game! Since the first rule tells us that W owns more than Y, then the five buildings must follow one of the following distributions: (1) T gets 2, W gets 2, Y gets 1; (2) T gets 1, W gets 3, Y gets 1. Regardless, Y always has one building, and W must have at least 2. Question 15 tests this fairly directly, and questions 17 and 18 rely heavily on it, as well. Finally, the last rule is tricky, but can be shown as follows:

NOT Ts Yi

NOT Yi Ts

That means if T does not own S, Y must own I, and vice versa. This concept is tested frequently as you work through the questions.

4. Grouping game--three bouquets with five kinds of flowers. Another fairly straightforward grouping game to end the section, where the numerical uncertainties again play a vital role. There are few inferences at the outset--limited mainly to no S in 1, and no L in 3--so it is imperative that test takers get to these questions quickly. Fortunately, those inferences, combined with the exactly two shared by bouquets 2 and 3, answer several of the questions (22 and 23 in particular) without much trouble.

Note too how putting certain flowers in either 1 or 3 eliminated several options from the other, such as putting R in 3 (no R in 1 then, meaning no L in 1 either), or putting P in either 1 or 3 (no P in the other then, meaning no T either). These are the types of hypothetical situations and inferences that the test makers commonly employ, but prepared students should have had little difficulty working through them."

So, what are your thoughts about the games? Any questions?

Ron