How do logic games relate to law?
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 1:03 pm
Why are we doing these things? What cognitive abilities tranfer over to the study and practice of law? Just curious to know.
Top Law Schools
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
How do logic games relate to law? Forum
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=190376
Page 1 of 1
Re: How do logic games relate to law?
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 1:07 pm
Wait till you take real property my friend
Re: How do logic games relate to law?
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 1:10 pm
And contracts. And anything that requires statutory interpretation.Teoeo wrote:Wait till you take real property my friend
Re: How do logic games relate to law?
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 1:21 pm
.
Re: How do logic games relate to law?
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 1:24 pm
Re: How do logic games relate to law?
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:57 pm
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.
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.
Re: How do logic games relate to law?
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:01 pm
They don't
Re: How do logic games relate to law?
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2012 2:16 am
While I'm not going to touch on the lsat as it relates to law school at all, I have thought all along that the relationship between law school grades and lsat grades is meaningless. In my opinion it's got little to do with the content of the test, and everything to do with effort and learning ability. If the lsat was a physics test, the kids who did best on it would still likely be the ones with good law school grades, because if your willing to put in the work to learn the lsat, your willing to put in the work in law school.