Let's talk about recent LG trends... Forum

[WaltGrace83]

I didn't take the June 9th LSAT but it seems there is a lot of frustration about it and many people say that it was a VERY unusual game (I am not here to debate this. This could be true or false but, for the purposes of this post, who cares). One may suppose that the February circle game was not a fluke and LSAC might be trying to have at least one game stray from the typical conventions we have seen from PTs.

So just as LR is best mastered when one analyzes reasoning in the abstract, it seems that it might be time to supplement LG knowledge with more than just "do LGs like free throws, one after the other for weeks and weeks and weeks." In order to better prepare for my test in September, does anyone know of some non-LSAT games to prepare those LG muscles? Sudoku is often credited by people but perhaps there are some books out there full of those fun puzzles. Does anyone have suggestions?

EDIT: seriously. We don't need to discuss the latest 4th game specifically.

[berkeleynick]

I've read that some people use the "bad" preptest companies' logic games to supplement real logic games because they're often trickier. However, have not personally looked at them, just hearsay, but had this same thought this morning and am glad you posted this.

I feel like a lot of it is just mental though (at least in my experience with tricky/unusual games). People get so tied up in routine and robotic approaches that they try to force a framework on something that doesn't need a framework or for which a particular framework is not the best approach instead of just looking at it aerially with a clear mind.

But I didn't take the June 9th exam so what do I know. Would like to hear others' thoughts.

[berkeleynick]

If anyone has a list of the 'rare' or 'weird' games that have existed on the LSAT that might be helpful. I know I have a packet of 'rare' games somewhere, along with the circle games that went out of style according to conventional wisdom.

[Statu$studios]

I mean. I'm far from an expert, but it's probably fair to say that LSAC would--in a perfect world--prefer a test that measures any given college graduate's reasoning ability regardless of preparation time. I would further argue moves like this are, actually, purposely made as a hedge against the people who spend months prepping for the test. In the grad scheme of things, I would further speculate that there are people at LSAC who get nervous every time they here someone from the law and law-school community quote the weak LSAT-to-performance correlation. Honestly, I think they are trying to stay nimble in hopes of not being eliminated some day (now...do I think that will happen? no. not at all. but that doesn't change the possibility that LSAC could be a little scared.)

That's my theory. hah And I did take the test yesterday. I don't believe the feared games were that bad. You do--as you alluded to--just have to view each game a little more holistically and don't think "Oh my goodness, this isn't like that one or it isn't like that one!" It is still about what things go where and follow the rules they say.

[DrSpaceman]

It pains me to put it this way, but I suspect that a lot of people would agree. I just didn't go in there expecting to have to think in a novel way about LG. I know I should have, but like most of us, I spent the last few months hammering the standard forms. I don't think it's as apocalyptic as everyone seems to think; the rules at face value allowed you to eliminate several wrong answers across the questions if you took a second to breathe, but I don't expect that many people were able to set up a very useful diagram.

It was a very unique game. If I end up having to retake, I'm definitely going to consider a more abstract approach to prepping for LG, as should anyone who is already planning to take in September.

[cron1834]

It pains me to put it this way, but I suspect that a lot of people would agree. I just didn't go in there expecting to have to think in a novel way about LG. I know I should have, but like most of us, I spent the last few months hammering the standard forms. I don't think it's as apocalyptic as everyone seems to think; the rules at face value allowed you to eliminate several wrong answers across the questions if you took a second to breathe, but I don't expect that many people were able to set up a very useful diagram.

It was a very unique game. If I end up having to retake, I'm definitely going to consider a more abstract approach to prepping for LG, as should anyone who is already planning to take in September.

I'm with you on this. Of course, I'm so slow on games that even extracting a couple points out of the last game wasn't really in the cards for me.

I think I agree with a poster in the other thread that suggested reviewing long-lost games from 1 - 20 would be helpful, or perhaps the "Hard Games" packets to help get used to oddball setups. I'm probably done with the LSAT after two takes, but if I retake this is where I'm going to start ...

[mornincounselor]

Post removed.

[chup]

[EDIT]

"Hey I know we can't ask this, but I'm just gonna go ahead and ask anyway."

BANNED.

[nygrrrl]

Just for fun - and because the very title of this thread seems to court trouble - I'm going to re-post the rules regarding discussion of the recent LSAT questions. Thank you all for your co-operation.

IMPORTANT LSAT INFORMATION

1. Games were hard. Okay.
2. Yeah, on the second question for the second game, I wasn't sure if C was just on Tuesdays or Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Ban.
3. No, the order is ACDBBE. Ban.
4. What about Question Four? If C can't go on Tuesdays, then it has to be Wednesday right? Ban.
5. You guys are stupid. The answer to Question Four and Five is D. Ban.
6. No, the answers are CDAABE. Ban.
7. C'mon guys. How can you not know all of the answers? Ban.

1. I thought the LR sections weren't too difficult. Okay.
2. What answers did you all get for the coffee growers question? Ban.
3. I got A. Ban.
4. That's weird, I thought it was either B or D. Ban.
5. But it was a parallel reasoning problem. Ban.
6. Damn it, I knew I should have picked B. Ban.
7. Hold on guys, I think the mods might get upset if we keep this up. Never a good sign.
8. Let's trick them by disguising what we're saying. So, hypothetically, if I were a coffee grower..... Ban.
9. You would be displeased with government regulation of pesticides. Ban.
10. But not price controls. Ban.
11. Is that because, hypothetically, price controls would raise prices and revenue? Ban.
12. It's just a cost problem in general. If you were a coffee grower, the legal pesticides would, hypothetically, cost more. Ban.
13. Whoa, it's just like Question 13 from the second LR section in PT 39. Ban.
14. Guys, maybe we should create a chatroom to discuss this. I started one: tinychat.com/letscheatontheLSAT Ban.
15. If you guys could PM me about this, that'd be great. Ban.

Please note that this warning applies to the Reading Comprehension section as well as the writing sample.

[094320]

..

[Nulli Secundus]

As ATL says, there never was and there can never be a hard logic game. Git gud.

[094320]

..

[Clyde Frog]

I Think it's better to have a fluid approach on LG. Seems that the LSAC is trying to counteract the mechanical approach everyone is learning through the various prep companies. For this reason, I think that the earlier LGs (1-20) may be of some value since many require a level of creativity to setup.

[Atmosphere]

I don't think this game was confusing because it was unorthodox. Sure, that was part of it, but my issue was that I literally couldn't understand the stimulus. I got to it with 15 minutes left, read the stimulus for about ten minutes and still had to guess for 4/5 of the answers.

[Nulli Secundus]

This question will be part of PT number what in the future? I want to see what all the fuss is about.

[Atmosphere]

This question will be part of PT number what in the future? I want to see what all the fuss is about.

I think you'll be able to see when the test is disclosed in a few weeks

[FlyingNorth]

This question will be part of PT number what in the future? I want to see what all the fuss is about.

72

[CardozoLaw09]

I don't think this game was confusing because it was unorthodox. Sure, that was part of it, but my issue was that I literally couldn't understand the stimulus. I got to it with 15 minutes left, read the stimulus for about ten minutes and still had to guess for 4/5 of the answers.

I hear you, man. This game reminds of the reaction people had about Zones from PT67

[Clyde Frog]

I don't think this game was confusing because it was unorthodox. Sure, that was part of it, but my issue was that I literally couldn't understand the stimulus. I got to it with 15 minutes left, read the stimulus for about ten minutes and still had to guess for 4/5 of the answers.

I hear you, man. This game reminds of the reaction people had about Zones from PT67

That test also had the Kung passage and only had a -10 curve. Same could be true of June test.

[confused_humpback]

I don't think this game was confusing because it was unorthodox. Sure, that was part of it, but my issue was that I literally couldn't understand the stimulus. I got to it with 15 minutes left, read the stimulus for about ten minutes and still had to guess for 4/5 of the answers.

Agreed. Got the game with 15 minutes left, but I still had to guess on three of the questions mainly because I just couldn't extract any significant inferences or construct a good diagram. It just seemed way too open ended to attack effectively. I've seen one or two people say that they thought the game was actually very simple and solved it in under 10 minutes, but I think it's more likely that they misunderstood the stimulus if they thought it was that easy. The joke might be on me, though.

[Atmosphere]

I don't think this game was confusing because it was unorthodox. Sure, that was part of it, but my issue was that I literally couldn't understand the stimulus. I got to it with 15 minutes left, read the stimulus for about ten minutes and still had to guess for 4/5 of the answers.

I hear you, man. This game reminds of the reaction people had about Zones from PT67

That test also had the Kung passage and only had a -10 curve. Same could be true of June test.

This would be sadistic. I had an uber-realistic lucid dream that the curve was -35 & we had a TLS suite in Vegas with a hot tub

[ScottRiqui]

I don't think this game was confusing because it was unorthodox. Sure, that was part of it, but my issue was that I literally couldn't understand the stimulus. I got to it with 15 minutes left, read the stimulus for about ten minutes and still had to guess for 4/5 of the answers.

I hear you, man. This game reminds of the reaction people had about Zones from PT67

That test also had the Kung passage and only had a -10 curve. Same could be true of June test.

I didn't take the test, but browsing through the Waiters thread, I suspect that the wishful thinking for a December-esque curve is going to lead to a lot of broken hearts here in a few weeks.

[Clyde Frog]

I don't think this game was confusing because it was unorthodox. Sure, that was part of it, but my issue was that I literally couldn't understand the stimulus. I got to it with 15 minutes left, read the stimulus for about ten minutes and still had to guess for 4/5 of the answers.

I hear you, man. This game reminds of the reaction people had about Zones from PT67

That test also had the Kung passage and only had a -10 curve. Same could be true of June test.

I didn't take the test, but browsing through the Waiters thread, I suspect that the wishful thinking for a December-esque curve is going to lead to a lot of broken hearts here in a few weeks.

I feel the same way. Another example is pt 57 with dino game and fractals rc that had a -11 curve. Also a June test.

[jk148706]

.

[Jeffort]

I feel like a lot of it is just mental though (at least in my experience with tricky/unusual games). People get so tied up in routine and robotic approaches that they try to force a framework on something that doesn't need a framework or for which a particular framework is not the best approach instead of just looking at it aerially with a clear mind.

I agree. Games with an unusual/non-traditional structure mainly freak people out on test day that are too rigid with their thinking and expect every game to fit into a particular quickly/easily recognizable mold/framework they've seen/practiced before/memorized stuff about/'know how to do'/etc.

One of the important skills LGs are meant to test is peoples ability to figure out and understand the structure and relationships created by the conditions -- meaning how the game 'works' -- in order to figure out a good way to organize a useful set-up of how the different pieces work in relation to each other you can then make inferences from/about and use to solve questions efficiently. In essence, one of the challenges is supposed to be figuring out the 'logical action/system and structure' of the workings of the game and then using that understanding to figure out how to set it up efficiently for making deductions and solving questions. You don't have those challenges with traditional game types you've studied, seen and done many times before. Since you already know how best to lay out the base, elements and rules and what types of deductions/rule combinations to pay attention to, you're able to focus most of your set-up time on figuring out deductions, not on figuring out what the base should be and trying to figure out the basics of what's going on with the elements.

Pretty much everyone that preps a significant or even just moderate amount using books/a class from a good LSAT prep company gets familiar with the commonly repeated game types, so figuring out the basics of the game structure (grouping, sequencing, advanced linear sequencing, in/out grouping, etc.) and main types of relationships that govern the elements to lay out a game board/slots/etc. and know what types of deductions to look for isn't much of a challenge for traditional game types for decently prepared people. When a game is just another in/out, adv linear, standard sequencing, defined groups, etc. game type that has been done many times in the past, it's no challenge to figure out how to lay out and organize the base, rules, etc. to get right into using the limited time searching for deductions of the type you know that game type typically contains that will speed up answering the questions with less brute force.

Unusual/non-traditional games emphasize testing the basic skill of figuring out what the heck the basic logical structure, action/system/operation/types of relationships the game and elements revolve around to even get off the ground with it with the basic structure to be able to find deductions. This means games specifically designed to go back to testing the ground level basics of what LGs were originally meant for when first added to the LSAT in I think the 1980s. In modern LSAT history, the current (possibly ending?) trend of LG sections with all pretty much normal game types and no oddball surprise ones has only been going on for the last several years of recent history, going back roughly 6-8 years or so. Prior this time period, the majority of all other LG sections have had one game that is (or was at the time) 'new'/unique in a significant important way(s) from any past games to test peoples ability to quickly figure out the logic of an unfamiliar structure/types of rules/relationships.

Two oddball game types popping up on back to back administrations may mark the beginning of a new trend, and if so, would really just be reverting back to the previous longstanding trend since June 1991 of typically having one somewhat off the beaten path in some significant & unique way game per section. But who knows, two tests in a row doesn't necessarily mean anything about the future. It wouldn't surprise me though, I've thought that the LG section got way to predictable, run of the mill and too easy to get a perfect score on for the last several years due to how run of the mill types almost all of the games have been with few 'have to figure out the logic of something totally new you've never seen before or been taught detailed methods for real fast on the spot' real 'thinking on your feet' LG 'figure out the puzzle' rather than just figure out the deductions challenges.

The only thing the test writers have at their disposal to keep the test challenging and maintain the integrity of the score scale is to make sure it keeps evolving/changing stylistically so people cannot 'memorize' and brute force practice their way to perfect LG scores by doing every past game multiple times and knowing what the best solution for each of those is. Novelty is the only way to do that to test high end LG skills and ability to quickly figure out and analyze an unfamiliar structure you haven't learned any methods for and been able to practice a bunch. As a long time teacher/tutor, it's about friggin time LSAC got back around to dusting off and reviving another long forgotten oddball game type nobody could have expected coming. I don't mean this to be mean, I'm not hoping LSAC is making LGs way harder going forward, I just like it because it is a reminder to stay on your toes and not make any assumptions about what LSAC will or won't do with LGs and assume it's an 'easy free points section', don't assume that old types like cirq sequencing, mapping, pattern or whatever are dead and won't come back, etc. I've been getting tired of people treating the section with the 'easy points' attitude for the last few years, underestimating it, and acting as if people are retarded if they can't quickly self prep their way to near perfect LG section scores. It's still supposed to be a challenging section even for 170s range scorers!

Anyway, I can't wait to see the game once the test is released to see what soo many people are freaking out about to see if LSAC really did go full tilt with another rare actual 'killer game' or if it's just another typical freakout because it wasn't a traditional type that turns out to be not that bad, like the clown game from PT51 tons of people freaked out about on test day and screamed about on the board for weeks that turned out to be pretty easy if you just calmly put together the rules, as was quickly seen once scores were released.

Anyway, the moral of the story, don't ever make any assumptions about what the test writers will or won't put on the test, or that any apparent 'trends' will continue/are reliable to bank on. They are not, the test writers are always doing things to stay one step ahead of the prep to the death crowd to make sure 170+ scores really mean the person has the true skills and to punish people that make and rely on assumptions about past patterns always holding true on future tests. There are new things/twists/some novelty on every new test form, it's a constantly evolving thing to remain slightly unpredictable in certain ways every test to make sure scores above 170 are really earned and mean something significantly different about the person in terms of actual skill level than high 160s scores.

Sorry that it seems to have been a big problem for a lot of you on Monday, hope scores still turn out well and things balance out properly with the scale and the actual difficulty levels of the other sections to counterbalance.