Top Law Schools

Cast your vote!

who gives a shit?

chimp wrote:who gives a shit?

IB someone uses LSAT nerd / geek / psycho

The underlying technique that they all utilize is the same thing: read information --> translate rules --> diagram --> use diagram to answer questions. There's only slight differences in approaches; for example, I've noticed Dave Hall likes to stack ordering diagrams on top of each other so that it's more easily accessible. In the end, it's really all the same idea.

chimp wrote:who gives a shit?

Gee, I don't know. People were saying the same thing when you were born, I just figure I'd add to the triviality that already exists in the world. Try not to take things so literally.

Joeshan520 wrote:

chimp wrote:who gives a shit?

Gee, I don't know. People were saying the same thing when you were born, I just figure I'd add to the triviality that already exists in the world. Try not to take things so literally.

Lol.

Isn't it Professor Moriarty?

Manhattan LSAT Noah wrote:Isn't it Professor Moriarty?

+1
Such a mastermind. An inspiration to many.

You need a write-in option. I don't know who these people are.

Noah from Manhattan because of grouping games.

ss3825 wrote:Noah from Manhattan because of grouping games.

Noah had no role in creating any of the manhattan strategies or systems.

The survey is fundamentally flawed given the question "Greatest Games Guru of All Time" and the options presented.

Many of the people in the list of options haven't been teaching and/or otherwise involved in providing LSAT prep advice for more than a few years. Some of them had never even seen or worked an LSAT test form for the first time more than three to five years ago, nor started to teach others how to perform well on the LG section until sometime in less than the past three to five years. That blows the "of ALL Time" point of the survey out of the water and out of logical land.

There also needs to be a set of definitions as to what constitutes a games guru. I believe the qualifications require that one is able to teach an effective set of methods for attacking games that works consistently AND efficiently in order to answer all of the questions correctly (or at least almost all/as many as possible depending on the situation, goals and needs of the student) in the allotted time without having to do a lot of ineffective energy draining trial and error, brute force, plug and chug hypotheticals question by question, answer choice by answer choice.

Heavily relying on the brute force trial and error with hypos method is one of the main reasons why many people are unable to complete all the questions in a LG section in 35 minutes and/or complete them with correct answer choices because time and effort is wasted on work that does not help lead to selecting a correct answer choice.

This is not meant to say that busting out some hypotheticals while working a game is a bad strategy, just that they should be done in moderation in circumstances when they are going to be effective to get to correct answer choices as quickly and efficiently as possible when you don't have an already formed deduction that answers the question at hand.

Anybody that advocates not making or at least looking for basic deductions (the LG section is also called the deductive/analytical reasoning section of the test for valid reasons) before diving into the questions and/or before going into brute force hypo mode when working questions is automatically disqualified from being considered a 'guru' IMHO.

With a good overall approach plus solid strategies per game type and question type, one can make it through the LG section for a perfect or near perfect score comfortably with time to spare without having burned up a bunch of mental energy (that you'll need for later sections unless LG is section #5) and time writing out tons of hypos that don't turn out to help, meaning less overall effort expended on 'churn and burn' brute force hypos accompanied by better yield results in terms of points scored in the allotted time.