Thinking about it today I really don't know how one could Forum

[jd20132013]

have "prepared" for those LGs.

I mean, I guess that's what they're trying to do, making it more of a test of innate ability. But it really seemed like the materials I used didn't prepare me for at least half of those games.


*shrug*

[joebloe]

Well, there's preparing and there's preparing.

By that I don't mean that you should work every LG ever disclosed 8 hours/day for months before the test. What I mean is that the extent of preparation most can really do for LG in simply studying for the LSAT is to:

• Know there's an LG section,
• Know how to form a contrapositive,
• Know you can skip around, and
• Know how to take your lumps on LG and not let it kill you on the rest of the test.

I think much more pretty much requires you to have recently taken a course whose focus was propositional logic, or otherwise just having innate ability. My course was over six years ago and was more about the applications to computer science, and taught by a pregnant airhead.

[kwais]

There probably is something to the idea that they want to cut down on the people who have simply taken every prep test and feel entitlted that the questions they see with fall neatly inline. It may have been frustrating but it certainly wasn't unfair. We don't have a "right" to be prepared for this test.

[jd20132013]

Oh no, I'm not claiming it's "unfair" in any way. It's probably more fair this way.

just disappointing.

[Anomaly]

I hate to say this but I thought they were the same old games guys, just new twists. This is how every LSAT has been.

[2011Law]

I hate to say this but I thought they were the same old games guys, just new twists. This is how every LSAT has been.

I also thought that this LSAT was in line with the more recent ones, didn't think it was completely alien at all. That being said, I think the more recent LSATs, this one included, are way harder than in the PTs from 40-55.

[niederbomb]

Not...I swear I did much better on the Superpreps, which supposedly contain the hardest games on a released LSAT, than one these.

The difference? Old LSAT games followed predicable formats. Old LSAT games may have looked intimidating (e.g. bus game=PT 36, jewelry game=PT 33), but all of them followed pretty standard formats. And all of them had a key deduction that unlocked the whole thing. Even Dinos wasn't so bad once you found the key.

Fast forward to the 60's.

These games often don't have key deductions, they don't fit into the same predetermined categories, and they eat up time like nothing I've ever seen before.

If I have to retake, I'm going to put the PS Bible, the Atlas guide, and all other obsolete prep guides that still think every LSAT is like the 40's on a dusty shelf and try to hunt down some non-LSAT puzzles that are similar but harder and more variable than the real thing and work on trying to improve underlying skill-sets.

I'd much rather practice a fake, time-consuming matrix game from Kaplan than another girly sequencing game from PT 48 in some "real test questions" prep guide.

Has anyone ever heard of ACE the LSAT LOGIC GAMES?

[niederbomb]

There probably is something to the idea that they want to cut down on the people who have simply taken every prep test and feel entitlted that the questions they see with fall neatly inline. It may have been frustrating but it certainly wasn't unfair. We don't have a "right" to be prepared for this test.

I'd like to try a different approach to LSAT prep of trying to improve underlying skill sets rather than wasting time on actual test questions that are waaay easier than what we're ever going to see.

Anyone have any ideas?

[Anomaly]

.

[joebloe]

[...] I'd much rather practice a fake, time-consuming matrix game from Kaplan [...]

Having taken a Kaplan course for this test, I don't know what you're talking about. All the LGs in there were from PTs.

[northwood]

i guess now you have to prepare how to deal with a bad section or games when you do a prep test?

[Sandro]

how do you prepare for games that just give you a loose setup and 4-5 rules and then ask you to hypo the shit out of them? Like a previous poster said, now you'd be better off taking a propositional class or a puzzle solving class. How does this test logic at all now? I'm fine with insane LG sections as long as you curve the test to -15/-16 like the low/mid 20s.

[SilverE2]

Not...I swear I did much better on the Superpreps, which supposedly contain the hardest games on a released LSAT, than one these.

The difference? Old LSAT games followed predicable formats. Old LSAT games may have looked intimidating (e.g. bus game=PT 36, jewelry game=PT 33), but all of them followed pretty standard formats. And all of them had a key deduction that unlocked the whole thing. Even Dinos wasn't so bad once you found the key.

Fast forward to the 60's.

These games often don't have key deductions, they don't fit into the same predetermined categories, and they eat up time like nothing I've ever seen before.

If I have to retake, I'm going to put the PS Bible, the Atlas guide, and all other obsolete prep guides that still think every LSAT is like the 40's on a dusty shelf and try to hunt down some non-LSAT puzzles that are similar but harder and more variable than the real thing and work on trying to improve underlying skill-sets.

I'd much rather practice a fake, time-consuming matrix game from Kaplan than another girly sequencing game from PT 48 in some "real test questions" prep guide.

Has anyone ever heard of ACE the LSAT LOGIC GAMES?

I used Ace The LG to prep for this test, and I have to say it really didn't help me much. While the games in the book are very difficult...they're not different if you catch my drift. I got to the point where I could finish the games in the book with time, and few to no errors, but I still got absolutely rocked on this LG section (complete guessed on 4, and educated guessed on another 4). They're all along the standard line of lsat questioning. They didn't have any twists to make them more difficult like these recent games have had.

[joebloe]

how do you prepare for games that just give you a loose setup and 4-5 rules and then ask you to hypo the shit out of them? Like a previous poster said, now you'd be better off taking a propositional class or a puzzle solving class. How does this test logic at all now? I'm fine with insane LG sections as long as you curve the test to -15/-16 like the low/mid 20s.

I think it tests logic a lot better to require test-takers to have a real grasp of the fundamentals of logic rather than just winging it by working out problems and reading explanations. Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely in the same boat as a lot of people who bombed LG, but what you learn by looking for test writing patterns taking every PT ever released is nothing compared to what you learn in a logic class.

[Sandro]

how do you prepare for games that just give you a loose setup and 4-5 rules and then ask you to hypo the shit out of them? Like a previous poster said, now you'd be better off taking a propositional class or a puzzle solving class. How does this test logic at all now? I'm fine with insane LG sections as long as you curve the test to -15/-16 like the low/mid 20s.

I think it tests logic a lot better to require test-takers to have a real grasp of the fundamentals of logic rather than just winging it by working out problems and reading explanations. Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely in the same boat as a lot of people who bombed LG, but what you learn by looking for test writing patterns taking every PT ever released is nothing compared to what you learn in a logic class.

Okay but as it stands now 75% of the test is testing real skills, like how well you read quickly, or how you analyze arguments. 25% of it (LG) now tests you on how well you can solve glorified puzzles, taking pieces and seeing if they fit in certain places (hypos). Maybe i'm just bitter because if you took out LG and put an LR/RC i'd be in the high 160s instantly....

[niederbomb]

how do you prepare for games that just give you a loose setup and 4-5 rules and then ask you to hypo the shit out of them? Like a previous poster said, now you'd be better off taking a propositional class or a puzzle solving class. How does this test logic at all now? I'm fine with insane LG sections as long as you curve the test to -15/-16 like the low/mid 20s.

I think it tests logic a lot better to require test-takers to have a real grasp of the fundamentals of logic rather than just winging it by working out problems and reading explanations. Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely in the same boat as a lot of people who bombed LG, but what you learn by looking for test writing patterns taking every PT ever released is nothing compared to what you learn in a logic class.

Okay but as it stands now 75% of the test is testing real skills, like how well you read quickly, or how you analyze arguments. 25% of it (LG) now tests you on how well you can solve glorified puzzles, taking pieces and seeing if they fit in certain places (hypos). Maybe i'm just bitter because if you took out LG and put an LR/RC i'd be in the high 160s instantly....

I hear ya...If it weren't for logic games, I'd be on the verge of a 180 on some tests and in the mid 170's on virtually all of them.

I wonder which section is the most predictive of law school performance. My guess is RC>LR>UGPA>LG. If so, then weak LG people get rewarded when they dramatically outperform those with similar LSAT/GPA once in law school. It's probably an exaggeration, but it's an interesting theory that makes me feel better about my puzzle retardedness.

[benito]

I think after every LSAT administration there have been people on this forum and others talking about how much "different" one section or another was. The October LSAT had a funky LR section that everyone thought had to be experimental when they took it. The June LSAT had the mulch game that a bunch of people thought was something "completely new" and out of nowhere. The problem is the WAY in which a lot of people prepare, as if this is a test of knowledge and if you just take every practice test out there and memorize all the little tricks you'll be fine. Its just not the case, the people that write this test do this for a living, if you don't have a fundamental understanding of the LOGIC itself things are going to appear new and different to you because of the way they frame it. I didn't take December but when it comes out as a PT, I'm pretty sure it will be the same concepts (not saying it wasn't relatively hard cuz it could have been) as all the others....

[RefleX]

The game section was definitely more difficult, as I was going like -3 to -5 even on harder sections in PTs, but I wouldn't say it was really unfair, just harder. The thing that I'm pissed off about and think was dumb and seriously unfair was the fact that they didn't give you a sufficient amount of space to diagram in the one LG. Like not even close. I write really small and it still was a clusterf***.

[niederbomb]

I think after every LSAT administration there have been people on this forum and others talking about how much "different" one section or another was. The October LSAT had a funky LR section that everyone thought had to be experimental when they took it. The June LSAT had the mulch game that a bunch of people thought was something "completely new" and out of nowhere. The problem is the WAY in which a lot of people prepare, as if this is a test of knowledge and if you just take every practice test out there and memorize all the little tricks you'll be fine. Its just not the case, the people that write this test do this for a living, if you don't have a fundamental understanding of the LOGIC itself things are going to appear new and different to you because of the way they frame it. I didn't take December but when it comes out as a PT, I'm pretty sure it will be the same concepts (not saying it wasn't relatively hard cuz it could have been) as all the others....

So what's the best way to prepare to understand "the Logic itself"? Ok, RC and LR, I understand. Lawyer's read a lot. I read a moderate amount and usually ace one or both of those.

But how the h*ll do you practice the skills that go into games? Not arguing, I'd like to know. Any place I can find a set of unpredictable, hard puzzles to prepare for hard, unpredictable logic games?

They certainly don't come naturally to me like they do to some people.

[Anomaly]

^^^ Exactly. I think a lot of people are drilling the same games over, which is not a bad idea, but every test the LG section forces test-takers to make new logical deductions quickly and accurately. You will fail if you are expecting to walk in on test day, turn on auto-pilot, and rehash an old sketch with new letters. DON'T underestimate the games! In october i ended up with a 166 and a -9 in LG because I was wayyyyy too mechanical in my practice.

[northwood]

those that will be re taking: make sure to practice having a really hard games section. Give yourself less time and space to work the questions. that way if this were to come up again, you will have some strategiers to conquor it.

[RefleX]

Northwood you give some pretty good advice, but I can't help but think that dog in your avatar is the one giving advice. Have I lost my mind over this test?

[northwood]

its a picture of my dog. rocky.

the only advice he would give is to spay and neutur your dog. Feed your dog tons of table scraps and walk them 3 times a day at least

[RefleX]

Lmao.

[jd20132013]

To those talking about formal logic: I took a symbolic logic course as part of my major two years ago.

Honestly the logic part of the logic games was never a problem for me. It's setting up loose conditions that was always the problem.
Like, I'm sure colored windows was quite doable with a setup that incorporated that one condition fluently but I just couldn't get it clearly