Now that I've actually done a year of law school, I find myself thinking differently about the usual LSAC explanation about the Logic Games (which they call "Analytical Reasoning"). If you haven't watched it, watch it
here (starting around 9:45).
He says that the LSAT is "very analogous to, for example, tax law. In tax law, you have a scenario — it's a much larger and more complex scenario, namely the economy, people's jobs and incomes and so on — and then that scenario has a huge number of rules that apply to it about what kinds of taxes must be paid, or what kinds of deductions can be taken or cannot be taken, and then on the basis of that scenario and those rules, if you're a tax attorney or tax-payer, your job is draw conclusions about what you have to do, what you can't do, what you can do, and so on."
If the scenarios the LSAT describes are supposed to be like life, and the rules are supposed to be like the law, then LSAC has an incredibly cynical view of the law. Usually there were at least vaguely intelligible reasons for the laws that people have made, at least when they made them. But on the LSAT, it's just that H isn't next to K, or if P is in the same group as Q, then R isn't in the same group as S. There's no fundamental justification (or alternative justifications) for the rules — in copyright, to promote the progress of science and the useful arts (vs. the international "authors' rights" concept); in criminal law, utilitarian and retributive theories; etc. — these rules just are. There's no policy argument regarding the interpretation of J needing to be immediately after F, or questions regarding fairness and equity on one side and lower costs and dependability on the other. Logic games are a parody of the law, a kind of mockery of it.
But then, I always kind of figured that LSAC was full of it anyway and they just liked writing these little brainteasers, and frankly, they might as well. They're fun to do, and you can't really do law until you've studied it.