Doing 2/4 Logic Games. Could it really be a viable strategy? Forum

[LoriBelle]

Thank you for the input everyone. I started reading the LG Bible tonight. I am not signed up to take the test in October. I will probably take it February, actually. So I guess I shouldn't be too worried about not getting the hang of it. I will take the advice given to me, but it seems odd that a 3/4 is a viable strategy while 2/4 isn't if you think it's absolutely necessary. Because it's only a difference of about 6 questions less being guessed on. If you give yourself 17 minutes on two games there is no excuse not to get 100% of those questions right. So out of the 24 let's figure you'll probably get a total of 16 right factoring the guesses on the other 2 sets. If you absolutely kick butt on the LR and RC (say, 6 wrong on the two LR combined and 4 wrong on RC for a grand total of 26 wrong on the whole test), I don't see how you couldn't get like a 165 (like 85% questions right), which is a very good score and can give you a good shot at just about anywhere but Chicago, Standford and the Ives. I mean, by comparison, an average 151 is about 45 questions wrong.

I'm not saying I'm not going to study my hardest and give it my all, but even if I did do all the logic games after studying through for a few months the chances of me getting a 170+ are very slim anyway. It's like the 93rd percentile and only about 1.5% of test takers score 170 or above.

Please don't get me wrong. I am studying to do all 4 games. I am not at all dead set on this strategy, I'm just saying it seems viable if I get desperate.

I'm sorry, but in what universe does a grand total of 26 questions wrong equal a 165 on the LSAT? It's probably more on the order of a 157-158 than a 165. I missed 11 questions and got a 169 - just sayin'.

This may have been the case in the olden days, but the curves have tightened in recent years. For instance, you usually can't miss more than 37-40 to get a 151.

[Anaconda]

He meant 16 wrong. (6 on LG + 10 on the others).

101 - 16 = 85, it was just a typo on his part. And an 85 raw is very solid (165-167ish)

[locthebloke]

@beachbum
I said a 165ish could give you a decent shot a most places, with some exceptions, Stanford being one such exception. What is your apparent problem with what I said? Your response seems to imply that I said 165 could get you to Stanford.

Thanks again to everyone for the insights. I apologize for the unclear syntax/semantics in my posts, and thank you to the users who recognized what I was saying and could backed me up.

I certainly do not appreciate the petty mockery and snide remarks, but I guess that is the nature of such a forum, as it is focused on the rat race.

As I said before, I fully intend to study with doing all four in mind. This was supposed to just be some food for thought, but I sense of tinge of malice in the air that I did not intend...

[LoriBelle]

He meant 16 wrong. (6 on LG + 10 on the others).

101 - 16 = 85, it was just a typo on his part. And an 85 raw is very solid (165-167ish)

Okay, that actually makes sense. His numbers didn't add up either way, since 6+4+8=18, but 16 is certainly closer than 26. Missing 18 could land you anywhere from 161-164 I would say, depending on the curve.

I wasn't being malicious; I just didn't want the OP mistakenly banking on missing 26 and breaking 160. All better now!

[Anaconda]

Missing 18 could land you anywhere from 161-164 I would say, depending on the curve.

On the most recent tests a -18 would have netted you anywhere from a 163-167 (167 being an outlier - more likely in the 164-165 range).

[094320]

..