Morcartwright wrote:lsat_hellhole wrote:LOL... Logic games are far from a waste of time. They provide situations in which essential skills in any legal discipline are involved. First, you must understand rules and exactly what they say and how they apply. This is much like understanding exactly what a law says and when it applies. Next, you have chronological ordering of events which is an essential skill in a number of cases where you must arrange evidence that isn't necessarily automatically put in order for you. Grouping things together also can be applied to a number of cases. One of the most important things is your ability to connect things, in other words to make inferences. Many things you do in law school and out will involve making inferences from information you are given in order to rightly deduct conclusions from that info. While I agree the time aspect is a little bit more intense then it would be outside LSAT, it's needed to see those who manage to work much faster than others. I would suggest you learn to enjoy features of logic games or you could have a terrible time in law school and beyond. Best regards, and wish you the best on your score.
If it makes you feel better to justify how well you learned to game the exam and prioritize speed and test gaming over genuinely preparing yourself for law school and a law career, then I hope you're happy. Don't deceive yourself, that's all it is. You don't have any special aptitude over anyone else just because you can work fast on the LG. Your arrogance is astonishing. But then you're no different than the other arrogant inept a**holes I've seen inexplicably get into good law schools because they simply learned how to game the LSAT. So this better explains the paradox. Anyway, congrats. Again, I hope you're happy with your LG game awesomeness. I hope you're happy in your law school spot that you think you earned-- I'm sure you will be. Have a nice day. I'm done with this board.
Your assumptions are extreme in this post. I have practiced hard to get a better score on all the sections. With that said, I started out testing in the 140s and now I test into the 160 range on most tests. The entire test is called a test for a reason. My LG may have been good on this test, as I recognized I made some key deductions but I also know that there were a couple questions that I wasn't completely sure if I had the right inference.
All the LSAT is testing is, do you have or can you acquire the skills that the test puts forth? The fact that they put out the real past LSAT tests is an indicator that they are not trying to trick you or beat you at a game. Instead they want you to work hard to get used to the skills required in the LSAT because these skills also apply in law school and careers after which is what I eluded to with LG.
On a last note, you are incorrect, just because I have a butthole does not make me one. I haven't got into the law school I would like to go to, but I am working hard to do so. I hope you achieve your goals as well. Best of luck.
I will respond once more and then I'm done with this pointless time sink..
Talk about extreme... the exaggerated importance you place on the LG on predicting law school performance is extreme and absurd. It's especially absurd considering you admit you haven't even been to law school. It's so absurd, in fact, that it isn't worth my time to even engage with you anymore.
Also, your preposterous & uber-condescending statement:
<quote>"You're welcome. It seems that some people here could use valuable insight to help them understand the circumstances behind the LSAT.
Life isn't always about bigger and better, sometimes it's about enough, and these boards are fine for me for now. You shouldn't attempt to put people down based on your predispositions to things. Thank you for voicing your opinions though, I find it helpful to understand others views.</quote>
As for "putting people down," I started off doing no such thing. I started by offering my *general* opinion about the LG section, not singling anyone out or getting personal with anyone. Then it was "ABBEY" who started getting personal and putting me down in her response with her "ad hominem" attack on me, her mischaracterization of my performance on the LG section and her incorrect assumption (based on faulty reasoning) that just because I complain about the LG means that I performed poorly on it.
Some personal observations and advice: It seems like your superior performance on gaming the LG has made you a bit overconfident of your general reasoning skills, as best measured by the LR. So how did you perform on the LR? Hmmm? Obviously, based on your responses here, you have some serious deficits. You come to flawed conclusions without weighing the evidence, as you did by selectively disregarding the insults made by others against me (including your own) and taking my responses to insults out of context and mischaracterizing them.
