Top Law Schools

I'll start off by saying I am bad at logic games. I studied very hard for them for 3 months straight and I can still rarely get to the third game, despite the fact that I do relatively well in the other sections. This may be a silly question, but I'll ask it anyway. Is there a biological reason why some people, such as myself, can't do logic games? As far as I know, I do not have any sort of learning disability. I just wonder sometimes, is there something about my brain that keeps the proper neurons from firing when I need to complete a logic game? Just wondering if anyone else has had this interesting, and perhaps silly, thought. Thanks.

you're probably just not as smart as you thought you were.

dr123 wrote:you're probably just not as smart as you thought you were.

And probably neither are you, but that is beside the point.

How have you been studying?

Don't listen to the douchebag above. I was a natural at LG. I wish this were the case with LR, which is more important. I would focus on finding the strategies that work for YOU. If that means reviewing 5 different methods from 5 different prep companies, then so be it. What you don't want to do is use the same method from the same prep company and expect different results.

180wanabe wrote:I'll start off by saying I am bad at logic games. I studied very hard for them for 3 months straight and I can still rarely get to the third game, despite the fact that I do relatively well in the other sections. This may be a silly question, but I'll ask it anyway. Is there a biological reason why some people, such as myself, can't do logic games? As far as I know, I do not have any sort of learning disability. I just wonder sometimes, is there something about my brain that keeps the proper neurons from firing when I need to complete a logic game? Just wondering if anyone else has had this interesting, and perhaps silly, thought. Thanks.

Yes, to some extent there are limitations (for the vast majority of ppl) on how well a person can do on the LSAT. That said, if you have a math or logic (i.e. serious formal philosophy background) you are more likely to be able to reach any innate potential that may exist in terms of the logic games. Many people struggle with this section, and contrary to what some people say, it is not necessarily a section that you can simply learn to master (unless you have the underlying ability in the first place, and also have some sort of technical analytical training such as a strong math or science background--in many cases at least).

bizzybone1313 wrote:Don't listen to the douchebag above. I was a natural at LG. I wish this were the case with LR, which is more important. I would focus on finding the strategies that work for YOU. If that means reviewing 5 different methods from 5 different prep companies, then so be it. What you don't want to do is use the same method from the same prep company and expect different results.

I'm assuming you are referring to dr123, and not to either of the other posters who posted immediately before you...

Yep, I am referring to dr123. I am posting through a cell phone, so it is hard to quote people.

Thank you for the support guys. Although I am good at writing and comprehending dense material, math and pure logic have never been my strong suit. I got a 158 on the last test, not surprising given I didn't even get to the third LG section. I'm not looking to score a perfect 180 or even a 170, though I am hoping to eventually get it up to the mid to high 160s. I'm in no rush to retake the LSAT, even willing to wait until next cycle to apply. I was thinking of just doing Logic games for a long period of time, and then diving back into LR and RC a few months before I retake it. Any thoughts on this strategy? Any advice helps. Thanks

SumStalwart wrote:How have you been studying?

Well, I took the testmaster summer course before the October LSAT. I used their LG strategies. I put a good deal of effort into it, doing logic game after logic game while using their strategies. Though, I'm always open to new advice.

no

OP: spatial reasoning can be important for games. A person's strength in this area is probably a mix of genetics and development. That said, take heart. I've always been awful at spatial reasoning and did not have any sort of background to help it. But I was still able to go from missing close to 2/3s of the questions in LG to missing between 0 and 2. It took a ton of practice and time, but it's possible.

Lawquacious wrote:

180wanabe wrote:I'll start off by saying I am bad at logic games. I studied very hard for them for 3 months straight and I can still rarely get to the third game, despite the fact that I do relatively well in the other sections. This may be a silly question, but I'll ask it anyway. Is there a biological reason why some people, such as myself, can't do logic games? As far as I know, I do not have any sort of learning disability. I just wonder sometimes, is there something about my brain that keeps the proper neurons from firing when I need to complete a logic game? Just wondering if anyone else has had this interesting, and perhaps silly, thought. Thanks.

Yes, to some extent there are limitations (for the vast majority of ppl) on how well a person can do on the LSAT. That said, if you have a math or logic (i.e. serious formal philosophy background) you are more likely
to be able to reach any innate potential that may exist in terms of the logic games. Many people struggle with this section, and contrary to what some people say, it is not necessarily a section that you can simply learn to master (unless you have the underlying ability in the first place, and also have some sort of technical analytical training such as a strong math or science background--in many cases at least).

Meh, I was able to master LG without any natural ability at it and w/o any sort of math or science background. It's a section you can master bc if you do all the games enough times, there's enough commonalities and patterns between them to be able to do the new versions. If they drastically shifted the rules and the types of games, I would probably be in trouble, but they only make minor jumps in most cases.

Eta: I basically do games relying on memory of past games and how I did them and then some analyzing how to fit the new framework into the past ones, as opposed to relying on spatial reasoning to approach the game straight on.

Troll much?

180wanabe wrote:I just wonder sometimes, is there something about my brain that keeps the proper neurons from firing when I need to complete a logic game? Just wondering if anyone else has had this interesting, and perhaps silly, thought. Thanks.

Step one is not thinking along these lines. The more you rely on the 'I'm inherently bad at this' line of thought, the more you'll have a crutch that prevents you from progressing.

Step two is doing so many easy games that you puke from it. Seriously, do them over and over until they're unbelievably easy. Build up your confidence on the easy games so that it starts to sink in that you can do these things. Your biggest challenge at this point is the mental block you have towards the games, and the only way to overcome it is to do enough games that you can convince yourself they're easy.

Step three is actually prepping for an entire game section.

I see this all the time. You're in a hole because your confidence is 0. You need to stop digging.

dr123 wrote:you're probably just not as smart as you thought you were.

this

Michael Jordan was cut from is high school basketball team and went on to be the best ever. He didn't quit. But then again, I don't imagine he had you're negative attitude, either. So I'd say it's a toss-up. Really, you might as well give up.

charles_g wrote:Michael Jordan was cut from is high school basketball team and went on to be the best ever. He didn't quit. But then again, I don't imagine he had you're negative attitude, either. So I'd say it's a toss-up. Really, you might as well give up.

I hate that example. He was a Freshman cut from the varsity team before his growth spurt.

You're wrong. He didn't play varsity til his junior year, in Wilmington, NC. And there's plenty of undersized eight graders that play varsity in places like NYC. So I would say that it's a fine example.

spatial reasoning skills.

charles_g wrote:You're wrong. He didn't play varsity til his junior year, in Wilmington, NC. And there's plenty of undersized eight graders that play varsity in places like NYC. So I would say that it's a fine example.

Well MJ specifically says the coach said he was too short to play varsity, so he dominated JV that year instead, grew 4 inches, dominated varsity, the rest is history.

Look, I don't think OP should give up. Regardless of what reasons you have Jordan didn't make varsity. Kids younger than him that don't have near the potential make varsity all the time in cities with strong basketball programs.

charles_g wrote:You're wrong. He didn't play varsity til his junior year, in Wilmington, NC. And there's plenty of undersized eight graders that play varsity in places like NYC. So I would say that it's a fine example.

Meh, it's a really overplayed example. If his high school was competitive, it's plenty reasonable for good freshmen and sophomores not to make the team, especially undersized ones. (And your bolded statement is pretty much useless in helping, since it's the competitiveness of that particular school that mattered.) That's not to say it wasn't a roadblock that had to be overcome, but it's not like everyone thought MJ sucked and then boy did he prove them wrong.

The problem with prep materials is that they try to substitute long developed skills with exam like practice sets. For some people this strategy works because they developed the skill elsewhere - undergrad/hobby etc. For example someone who has read hundreds of non fiction can ace RC with little preparation. On the other hand no matter how much a non native speaker drills RC he will not be able to match the results of an RC champ. So you have two options - truckloads of practice of prep material over a long period of time so that the patterns and logic is internalized. Else you can take a logical reasoning course somewhere and drill several non LSAT puzzle books that involve questions logical reasoning. Enjoy the process because if you don't the goal will become more difficult.

Jordan went to laney high in Wilmington, NC. laney High has never won a state championship, in a state not particularly known for basketball.

Here's how the story relates. Michael Jordan thought he was good (OP thought he was smart). The coach thought he was only good enough to play jv (the LSAT thought OP was only smart enough to go to a tier 3). Michael Jordan goes on to become the greatest of all time (OP goes on to...). Michael Jordan could have given up. A lot of people give up when they don't get what they think they deserve. Some people work harder.