Hardest Game/Hardest RC Passage?? Forum

[Knock]

PT 10 Game 3 ("sentences" out of "words")

Anyone done this one? I know it's old but wow this one was really tough for me.

[theZeigs]

PT 10 Game 3 ("sentences" out of "words")

Anyone done this one? I know it's old but wow this one was really tough for me.

Funny, I thought that was easy. Yet a simple glance through our respective posts would demonstrate that your LG skillz are far superior to my own


I have another game to throw in the hat:

PT 27 game 3 Film Buffs. This was a game that takes 3 minutes to complete if you set it up right, and 20 minutes if you don't get the distribution/setup correct.

[bk1]

Unnumbered June 2007 LSAT: http://www.lsac.org/pdfs/SamplePTJune.pdf



In my opinion, you should take this as a full-length timed exam close to test day.

-Steve

Why is that? Is it one of the harder ones?

[LSAT Blog]

Because it's one of the newer ones.

[Hey-O]

Definitely practice on a newer test if you can get one. They are only eight dollars a piece and you can overnight it to get in time. In my opinion it would be worth it. The new RC is much more difficult. Not so much the passages themselves, but the questions. They have a lot of really convoluted analogy questions which are really difficult. Plus, if you've never seen the comparative passages they can throw you for a loop.

Plus, I think the LR has gotten trickier. Not harder, just trickier. More likely to use double negatives and other word tricks. I think it is because of the success of the test teaching programs.

[d34d9823]

Definitely practice on a newer test if you can get one. They are only eight dollars a piece and you can overnight it to get in time. In my opinion it would be worth it. The new RC is much more difficult. Not so much the passages themselves, but the questions. They have a lot of really convoluted analogy questions which are really difficult. Plus, if you've never seen the comparative passages they can throw you for a loop.

Plus, I think the LR has gotten trickier. Not harder, just trickier. More likely to use double negatives and other word tricks. I think it is because of the success of the test teaching programs.

Haha yeah, they're always trying to stay a step ahead. Probably good, though, screening for ability instead of preparation.

[Oblivion_08]

I just took the June 2007 LSAT that thing was hard. I got 18/23 on the LG but I completely missed one game.

The RC was extremely difficult, try those out

[theZeigs]

Another: PT 22 game 4, jugglers assigned to teams. I keep updating this thread as I work through games and find difficult ones.

[Knock]

I'd also like to add PT 38 game 4 (instrument ordering). Definitely a time consuming game, and lots of plug and chug.

[tomwatts]

I'd also like to add PT 38 game 4 (instrument ordering). Definitely a time consuming game, and lots of plug and chug.

And it was my familiarity with this game that made my knock the hardest game in February out of the park when a bunch of other test-takers bailed on it. They haven't done much like it since in released tests, but February of this year had one pretty similar to it.

[Knock]

I'd also like to add PT 38 game 4 (instrument ordering). Definitely a time consuming game, and lots of plug and chug.

And it was my familiarity with this game that made my knock the hardest game in February out of the park when a bunch of other test-takers bailed on it. They haven't done much like it since in released tests, but February of this year had one pretty similar to it.

Wow. Definitely glad I didn't take it in February then. I think i've done that game at least 3 times, andI don't think i've been able to do it in under 10 minutes. Do you have any tips for this game and others that may be like it?

Just curious too, what'd you score on the February test?

[tomwatts]

Do you have any tips for this game and others that may be like it?

Eh, think sideways. The thing that was weird was the sharing aspects (er, I'd say elements in a second row, but that terminology may not be universal) from one ordered location to the next (in this case, that the pieces have to share instruments with the ones next to them — in this game, just one of the ones adjacent). If I remember correctly, February's game had the same ingredient but simpler, and yeah, systematic testing of answer choices is your friend here. Really, now that I look back on February's game, it had more range clues (uh, whatever term you recognize for things of the form "A is before B") that you could link up to make reasonable deductions ("inferences") about where things had to go.

I suppose I could probably be more specific on PT 38, given that it's been released, but it's been a long day of LSAT (finished the last class of my in-person class tonight) and will be a long day of LSAT tomorrow (will finish two online classes), and I'm sort of fried.

Just curious too, what'd you score on the February test?

*cough* *points to profile* *cough*

[Knock]

Do you have any tips for this game and others that may be like it?

Eh, think sideways. The thing that was weird was the sharing aspects (er, I'd say elements in a second row, but that terminology may not be universal) from one ordered location to the next (in this case, that the pieces have to share instruments with the ones next to them — in this game, just one of the ones adjacent). If I remember correctly, February's game had the same ingredient but simpler, and yeah, systematic testing of answer choices is your friend here. Really, now that I look back on February's game, it had more range clues (uh, whatever term you recognize for things of the form "A is before B") that you could link up to make reasonable deductions ("inferences") about where things had to go.

I suppose I could probably be more specific on PT 38, given that it's been released, but it's been a long day of LSAT (finished the last class of my in-person class tonight) and will be a long day of LSAT tomorrow (will finish two online classes), and I'm sort of fried.

Just curious too, what'd you score on the February test?

*cough* *points to profile* *cough*

No worries and congrats man. Is that you're first 180? or have you just been racking them up.

[theZeigs]

I'd also like to add PT 38 game 4 (instrument ordering). Definitely a time consuming game, and lots of plug and chug.

Do you have any tips for this game and others that may be like it?

Eh, think sideways. The thing that was weird was the sharing aspects (er, I'd say elements in a second row, but that terminology may not be universal) from one ordered location to the next (in this case, that the pieces have to share instruments with the ones next to them — in this game, just one of the ones adjacent). If I remember correctly, February's game had the same ingredient but simpler, and yeah, systematic testing of answer choices is your friend here. Really, now that I look back on February's game, it had more range clues (uh, whatever term you recognize for things of the form "A is before B") that you could link up to make reasonable deductions ("inferences") about where things had to go.

I can't see a better way to do most of these problems. I would say #21 and #23 were the only ones that really jumped off the page at me, mostly because I drew out two possible diagrams (one with N second, one with T second) and then put what could come after or before each of these. For #21, I saw that both N and T had "F" in common, and from observing that no more than two pieces had a given instrument in common, I reasoned that if both the third and fourth pieces have the Fiddle, N and T would be used up, and couldn't be in the second position, violating the rules. For #23, in either possible diagram, N, T, S, and V could be first, and I just crossed these off and kept going. The game still took me 10:30 to do it (the second time, I don't even know what it took me when I did it as part of the legit PT).

I think that generally, when there are 4 or fewer possible diagrams, I benefit big time from quickly sketching them out, because it can really save a lot of time later. Even if it doesn't, four diagrams usually don't really take that long, and you learn a lot about the rules by making up the hypothetical situations that could arise in a game that is very constrained (i.e. four or fewer possible situations). I say "4" because I've noticed that games often will have two variables constrained to two places each, and 2^2 = 4. I suppose that 3 variables, each constrained to two places, would limit the situation to 8 sketches, but that's just too time consuming.

[Remnantofisrael]

<----------- RC fail.

June 2009 (PT 57).

Its the hardest modern test I've taken. I can't see one being more difficult. Two very tough RCs and a couple of really time consuming and abnormal LGs.