LSAT PT 72 (June 2014) Forum

[asukajjang]

I just got it. The game 4 was horrible. OMG.

[Jeffort]

It's pretty shocking when you first see it since it's a rare/unfamiliar pattern game type, but isn't actually that bad once you get past the 'WTF is this!!??!!' shock and think it through to get the basics down with the rules and make a gameboard to work from/make deductions from.

Here is the setup explanation I wrote that I posted last Tuesday while scores were being released:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=232122

Several prep companies have published their approaches/explanations for it that you can find with google if you want to see a few different approaches than mine. With oddball games, there's usually a variety of different ways people go about setting it up and approaching the game since they don't fit into a common traditional game type mold/basic known way to set it up before heading into the questions, unlike typical sequencing and grouping games with typical types of rules/restrictions/set-up base/etc.

If you figure out the key deductions of this game up front (there are only two different possible combinations of passes for each day, and you can figure out which combination by knowing only one of the passes for the day other than M --> J ), you can solve all the questions without having to write out any hypos except maybe a little bit of additional work past the setup for Q#s 21 & 22 if you didn't make two game boards and write in the dual options for the two different Wednesday possibilities in the two scenarios.

[Nulli Secundus]

Just had to see this game due to all the whine. And boy that was the worst $9 I spent. Not trolling anyone, but this game is seriously very easy. Do not constrain your thought process with orderly schematics, just use what you are given.

(I cannot write down the solution for the questions right? -without the stem-)

[Jeffort]

Just had to see this game due to all the whine. And boy that was the worst $9 I spent. Not trolling anyone, but this game is seriously very easy. Do not constrain your thought process with orderly schematics, just use what you are given.

(I cannot write down the solution for the questions right? -without the stem-)

I agree. It's actually really easy if you just simply use and analyze what you are given instead of trying to force it into a familiar schematic/mold, but wasn't going to say that right after score release cuz I didn't want to get ganged up on by frustrated test takers. After reading the stimulus and being a bit confused about what's going on since it's an oddball game, all you had to do was just look at the three rules, notice J is in all three, bingo! start there for deductions and putting together the pieces to figure out how the game works and stop freaking out about trying to classify the game type to decide what game board to draw out to get started.

Assuming that every game will fit into a familiar/common schematic you've practiced with/seen before, have learned about, memorized and practiced a bunch before test day and then approaching games mainly from that mindset expecting to already 'know' how to set-up and attack each one on test day by focusing on categorizing each game first thing can be dangerous. The reactions and scores of many June takers due to getting hurt by this game is pretty solid evidence of the danger of being too rigid/constrained in your LG thinking and relying too much on familiar memorized patterns of common game types for figuring out set-ups/deductions/how to approach each game to have solid LG section performance.

I think a lot of people rely on that assumption/have that perspective in large part due to all the comprehensive detailed prep resources available these days including analysis/data about trends/frequency of game types, common types of deductions for each type/sub-type, heavy prep focus on classification systems and memorizing patterns within game types/subtypes, etc. I think people rely too much these days on trying to classify/label/figure out which known schematic to use for each game right up front after reading the stimulus to decide how to start setting it up before doing anything else instead of just following the information given and putting it together piece by piece to figure out/build the proper set-up the old fashioned way from the ground up, and that's what hurt a bunch of people on this game. They got stuck at step one of their LG approach --trying to classify the game to decide what the gameboard should look like/what's basically going on with the game and how to approach it-- before analyzing the rules or doing anything else, and had no backup approach other than panic for figuring out how to handle the game when step one failed.

It wouldn't surprise me if LSAC is intentionally bringing back the funk with oddball games appearing more frequently again the way LG sections were during the 1990s into the early 2000s specifically to combat how 'game-able' LG sections on modern tests have become through brute force repetition and memorization of common game types focused prep. The LG section used to be hard to get only minus 0-2 even for strong 170s test takers due to there usually being one unusual game per section, unlike the last bunch of years where solid LG prep based on knowing and practicing all the common game types has been enough to get near perfect scores on most LG sections even for people performing far below high 160s/170+ range overall.

Two odd-ball games in a row with the circular sequencing one on the Feb test and then this one could just be random coincidence, but I doubt it. Novelty is the only thing the test writers really have available to bring the LG section back out of the 'easy free points for almost anyone if you just prep enough' zone it's been in for a bunch of years now. Notice that the first game on this test had an unusual set-up base too with two different sequences that drew from the same set of variables. According to test day feedback, that game threw a bunch of people for a loop at first too because the proper base was different than typical sequencing games and took a little work to figure out the basics of how to draw out the game board to fully see how the game worked.

Funny thing about unusual games like this is the disproportionate impact they have on different test takers. Students that don't prep to the extent hardcore TLS 170+ or bust types do by doing all the available LGs, doing most games several times, memorizing all the different classifications, subtypes, specific approaches for each one, etc. typically don't even notice that an oddball game is a rare type, stress about it or get phased by it since their thinking/approach isn't constrained by and/or dependent on a bunch of memorized schematics and specific tactics for particular known types/rule types/combinations/etc. that have appeared before.

I tutored a girl about LR for the June test, she was only shooting for a 150+ score (don't ask me why, but yes, those people do exist in the real world outside TLS!). She did very little LG prep, just learned the basics from Mikes book, practiced a few of each common game type, did several practice LG sections and then a few timed PTs. Total number of real LSAT LGs she had seen/done before test day was less than 50. When she called me after the test to tell me how it went I'd already seen OMG! WTF? posts here about game 4 so I asked her about it. She described the basics of the game and said she thought it was pretty easy. When I told her a bunch of people on TLS were saying it was weird and hard and asked if it threw her off at first or was hard to figure out how to get started or anything tough like that to figure out what everyone here was complaining about, she was genuinely surprised and said "No, nothing I can think of to freak out about or that was confusing to me. I just wrote out the days and the variables, then the rules, focused on the rules and noticed J was in all three and just worked from there to figure out some things before doing the questions, can't remember the details, but the questions seemed pretty easy with the stuff from my setup."

She achieved her goal, a 150, and got all the questions on game 4 correct. So, how do we resolve the paradox of a mid/high 140s highest PTs student that peaked at 150 on test day (and put in very little HW/drilling prep time) sailing through the 4th game with no trouble (she attempted and completed all 4 games in the 35 minutes, but missed questions on each of the other 3 games) against the many TLS high 160s/170+ PT score range well prepped people that got creamed by it?

I'm confounded by this, thus my above theory. Anyone else have any theories? This game shouldn't have ruined the day for properly prepared true high 160s/170+ ability level test takers.