Is this possible on the LSAT???? Forum

[Verisimi]

For the October test the order within the sections was definitely mixed up. I was just as surprised as the OP. However, the order shouldn't make a difference.

[typ3]

On logic games, there's a lot less certainty regarding order of difficulty. Although the games generally go from easiest to hardest, I've had my last game be easiest in the section, and my first game be the hardest (though this is more rare).

If you don't think you'll be getting above a 166 or so, I suggest spending a minute or so scanning each game and picking which order you want to work them in (although don't get too wrapped up in this). If you're aiming for 167 or above, you pretty much have to get perfect or near perfect on games so just do 'em in order.

I got a 167 on the Oct 2010 LSAT

LG: -6
RC: -4
LR1: -3
LR2: -2

So it's possible with a mediocre LG performance. With that said, I kick myself for not having a better LG strategy.

I heard it's best to do games in this order: 1, 4, 2 or 3.

1st and last are always easier. I found that to be true on both June and Oct 2010 LSAT.

If you plan on nailing logic games do them in order.

Master the easiest problem types so you can do them in 4-6 minutes each. This will free up a bunch of time for the harder games.

[incompetentia]

For the October test the order within the sections was definitely mixed up. I was just as surprised as the OP. However, the order shouldn't make a difference.

This. My memory is fuzzy but I believe we confirmed this once Oct scores were out.


I believe games are learnable to the point that the order should not at all matter.

[nelaw2010]

On logic games, there's a lot less certainty regarding order of difficulty. Although the games generally go from easiest to hardest, I've had my last game be easiest in the section, and my first game be the hardest (though this is more rare).

If you don't think you'll be getting above a 166 or so, I suggest spending a minute or so scanning each game and picking which order you want to work them in (although don't get too wrapped up in this). If you're aiming for 167 or above, you pretty much have to get perfect or near perfect on games so just do 'em in order.

I got a 167 on the Oct 2010 LSAT

LG: -6
RC: -4
LR1: -3
LR2: -2

So it's possible with a mediocre LG performance. With that said, I kick myself for not having a better LG strategy.

I heard it's best to do games in this order: 1, 4, 2 or 3.

1st and last are always easier. I found that to be true on both June and Oct 2010 LSAT.

Both of these posts are wrong.

First off, the guy who says you have to get perfect on LG for a 167 has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. I went -4 or -5 on games, and I scored a 169. This claim is ridiculous, and I almost wish a mod would delete his post.

Second, I agree that the games are usually in order of difficulty, but not always. Every test is different. The bolded section of the second quote is wrong. There is no certain format that LSAC always adheres to with the LSAT. The poster even admits to base this fact on only two tests. Again, ridiculous.

I should be more clear. It seems like on most of the tests, and I did the LG for ALL tests 1 - 61, that the first and last game are usually NOT the most difficult. It seems like the most difficult games are usually the 2nd or 3rd games.

Other posters mention that you should identify the easier questions in a particular game and do those first, I agree. Then again, difficulty is subjective to some extent. However, I think we would all agree that the Mauve Dino game (#3 on PT 57), was easier than the 4th game (something about a foundation that awards grants).

Just so that there is no misunderstanding. The 1st and last game are not always the easiest. However, it seems like they are usually not the most difficult.

[chup]

OP was banned.

As a reminder, do not discuss specifics of the games. That includes identifying the types of games.

[chup]

OP was banned.

As a reminder, do not discuss specifics of the games. That includes identifying the types of games.

Also, wrong forum.