Top Law Schools

Did anyone notice this trend, especially after PT 57 or so?

The games are not super difficult in retrospect, but when you see it for the first time under an actual testing condition, it just takes such a long time. Ive worked on most games in existence redoing most of them and thought my strong point was LG (0 for most and -1 once in awhile). But now that ive worked for a while on the other two sections, I encounter these frustrating games. I cant really point to a particular game, but there seems to be a lack of gimme ones and so i would experience time crunch throughout the section.

The frustrating thing is after being shocked by games in PT57-60 I re-solved those using wtev techniques i could garner (Dino in PT 57 4th game in PT 58 and Interns game and mulch game..these were the few games in the modern era where the initial setup helps you tons), but doing PT 61 game today...ended up with -4 gah...shitty shitty

The reason I thought LG was easy was that getting -0 is the key to get 170+ and I was convinced that it is possible based on my past performance. Im so annoyed to see the LG entering the arena as the EVIL F*** now...

Putting all this rant aside, I just want to know if any other ex-LG killers out there are starting to see the dark side of the games.

Two things in my opinion are contributing to this apparent difficulty, if there is any.

1. lack of major inference for MOST of the games. Without major inference, you have to plug and chug and this wastes a TON of valuable time. So this is whats giving me a sense of "ah it wasnt so bad" during review but ending up facing the same time-pressure on the following PT.

2. PLug and chug is not friendly: In the early 50s when the games were super easy; even plug and chug would not slow you down when inference doesnt really work out well for you. BUT in the post 57 games, the IF questions seems to be all over the place so that you have to reorient your mind for each question you attack (sorry cant describe better than this...) If anyone has seen the first game of PT 61, i think this would help you know what i mean. It didnt have like a MAJOR inference, so it ended up taking far more time than a typical FIRST game would take...You had to make scenarios for many of the questions and even some the answer choices....Plus, past work wasnt too big of a help.
And i thought...maybe this is the hard game? But no....the following ones were even more time consumin.
* Did anyone find the digram for game two of PT 61 so damn annoying? LSAC deliberately established the rules so that students would have hard time visualizing the diagram that they made, which is SUPPOSED TO ASSIST YOU. So clever...clever

Yea just wondering if this is just me or the test is getting weird or something.
AH how i wish the games were like those in the early 50s ...

I'm having the exact same problem! I use to have straight -0s, including on the PT30s which I originally thought were relatively hard. I don't understand how to improve my strategy quickly for the new games and the confidence I had on the section is now in shambles.

timeless wrote: * Did anyone find the digram for game two of PT 61 so damn annoying? LSAC deliberately established the rules so that students would have hard time visualizing the diagram that they made, which is SUPPOSED TO ASSIST YOU. So clever...clever

Yea just wondering if this is just me or the test is getting weird or something.
AH how i wish the games were like those in the early 50s ...

OP, was looking at the game right now, I can see how it can be difficult, but the diagram didnt give me trouble, just the stupid rule replacement question

Use process of elimination to find the right answer (so find what cannot be the right answer) instead of searching for the right answer immediately. You just need to find the right answer, you do not get points for having a complete and accurate diagram of the game (in response to plug n' chug). From my experiences, there are generally a few answer choices that are just so blatantly wrong they are easy to remove, so that's kinda like half the battle hah. Also, all each question is going to do is simply test you on a rule, or a combination of. Change your thinking from "the amount of possibilities are too great" to "I am working within the narrow confines that the rules of this game prescribe and it is easy to isolate what is needed." You know how to do logic games, don't let those LSAT assholes get the best of you - they have to stay on their toes the same way we do and they do this by undermining our confidence in the material by changing it. Stay one step ahead. Be faster, smarter, and quicker than they think the average LSAT test taker is. Good luck.

Thanks everyone for the input!!!

What do you guys think about the lack of MAJOR inference for most of these games?

Do you think the best way to go about is to simply play with the rules rather than trying to come up with an all encompassing diagram?

Thanks!

I just took PT 64 this morning and got bombed in the LG section.
I have to agree that games are getting harder and harder- I started having problems with games from PT 60 and on.
I think the rules render relatively fewer solid inferences compared to LGs in the past.

It was shocking to find out just days before the real test
(I'm taking the Dec test)that I hadn't mastered the games.
Before the first test I took in June, I did PTs 1-61, got 156 for the cold diagnostic test
and was averaging 170~173 by June.
But I got 164 (dang it still hurts to talk about it; should've canceled!) so I'm retaking.
After the first test, I've done PTs 30-64 every other day- all of them under actual timed conditions.
I really don't think there's much more I can do at this point and I feel helpless.
Plus, there are no more new tests I can take to gauge how I'm doing. It really sucks.

I'm sorry I don't have the answer to your concerns - but I feel you on them.
Hope I could get some decent advice from this thread, too ):

Here's something to go along with working within the narrow confines. Today we did 'killer games' in class (surprisingly no dinos) and the only one that stumped me was the last game the car factory.

I got 4/5 on that game without a complete diagram, just really did rules and what i felt the rules were guiding me to select.

It was frustrating because there were some inferences and set up that would have tamed the game, but my instructor said, "when dealing with a game that stumps you, figure out what is the most restrictive rule(s) and see how they affect the game."

HTH

I don't really notice the games getting harder. I think they're easier and better actually. They have deductions, but some of them (like stained glass) don't have that one big deduction that solves the whole game. The worst games were those old ones that gave you a bunch of fancy rules that you basically use for one operation each. I swear I spent more time comprehending the rules of those games than actually using any deductive reasoning abilities.

Hi all

Ok so I reviewed the games in PT 61, and I think initial set up and inference are major ass-savers.

I think the main reason many people like me had problems with the newest games is that we've been unknowingly used to the plug and chug method which worked relatively fine from 50-55/56.

But from PT 57, without the MAIN diagram or something along that line, it is almost impossible to go through doing plug and chug alone. I mean you can, but its gna take a long time, leading you to panic and screw up the later harder games.

For instance, in game 1 of PT 61, if you set up 3-4 possibilities, the questions would be a breeze, and in game 2 of the same test, setting up the extensive version of the two possibilities will make the questions so much easier. (for game two, making the extensive diagram was tough, since you had to flip things around to make it visually helpful. If you havent done so, you'll know what I mean)

I know its easier said than done, but the key to these modern games is initial set up. I know there are people who are nonetheless fast with the plug and chug, but for someone like me who isnt so good at it, taking several seconds to think and plan out the possibilities will make the questions a 5-second material.

GL to everyone and thanks for ur input!

Well....kinda have to take that for future ones because PT 62 was the worst set ive ever seen...

whats wrong with these games..

Yeah, I've noticed in 62, 63 and the Oct. 2011 LSATs that there is one time consuming game that's a bit more difficult than is usual.

D10 wrote:Yeah, I've noticed in 62, 63 and the Oct. 2011 LSATs that there is one time consuming game that's a bit more difficult than is usual.

63 may have had the easiest games section I'v ever seen, especially the first game.

3v3ryth1ng wrote:

D10 wrote:Yeah, I've noticed in 62, 63 and the Oct. 2011 LSATs that there is one time consuming game that's a bit more difficult than is usual.

63 may have had the easiest games section I'v ever seen, especially the first game.

This irritated me. I didn't register in time for test 63, and had to push back my registration date. Logic Games are my hardest section; I have to make a big effort to re-wire my thought process for them so they are draining. When I took a timed practice test with 63, I got all of them right.

RCinDNA wrote:

3v3ryth1ng wrote:

D10 wrote:Yeah, I've noticed in 62, 63 and the Oct. 2011 LSATs that there is one time consuming game that's a bit more difficult than is usual.

63 may have had the easiest games section I'v ever seen, especially the first game.

This irritated me. I didn't register in time for test 63, and had to push back my registration date. Logic Games are my hardest section; I have to make a big effort to re-wire my thought process for them so they are draining. When I took a timed practice test with 63, I got all of them right.

I just took that PT again today (didn't touch it for like 3 months). That games section is beyond easy. The RC makes up for it, but even that wasn't so bad in retrospect. It was just a much easier test.