PT 35 GAME 4 Forum

[New_Spice180]

Hey all,

I hope everyone's studying is going well! During my drilling I came across a game that frankly shook me, not so much because the questions were difficult per se, but the verbiage used in the game was strange. Phrases like "has one or more specialties, and any two "professors hired in the same year or in consecutive years do not have a specialty in common" definitely put a twist on things.

My question is how do we account for variances like this where the lsat deviates so far from "normal" language that it throws the test taker off? My fear is no matter how much drilling a game like this could pop up and completely shatter my ability to answer questions in a feasible amount of time. With games like this, are you better able to decipher their language after practice or is kind of one of things where you have to brute force your way through the game to you simply 'get it.'

Any advice/comments are appreciated!

[Clyde Frog]

You're overthinking it. All the rule means is that these professors who share a specialty can't be hired in the same year or a consecutive year. Ex. The last rule says O has a specialty in common with S and that S is hired in 1990. Based off this we know that O can't be hired in 1989, 1990 or 1991.

[New_Spice180]

You're overthinking it. All the rule means is that these professors who share a specialty can't be hired in the same year or a consecutive year. Ex. The last rule says O has a specialty in common with S and that S is hired in 1990. Based off this we know that O can't be hired in 1989, 1990 or 1991.

Right, but my main concern is how are we as test takers supposed to infer that "having the same speciality" implies that variables are not to be ordered consecutively? This type of loose/ambiguous language makes me a tad bit nervous.

[Clyde Frog]

You're overthinking it. All the rule means is that these professors who share a specialty can't be hired in the same year or a consecutive year. Ex. The last rule says O has a specialty in common with S and that S is hired in 1990. Based off this we know that O can't be hired in 1989, 1990 or 1991.

Right, but my main concern is how are we as test takers supposed to infer that "having the same speciality" implies that variables are not to be ordered consecutively? This type of loose/ambiguous language makes me a tad bit nervous.

I'd type a long response to you but ill just post this. https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsa ... n-3-game-4

[ponderingmeerkat]

Hey all,

I hope everyone's studying is going well! During my drilling I came across a game that frankly shook me, not so much because the questions were difficult per se, but the verbiage used in the game was strange. Phrases like "has one or more specialties, and any two "professors hired in the same year or in consecutive years do not have a specialty in common" definitely put a twist on things.

My question is how do we account for variances like this where the lsat deviates so far from "normal" language that it throws the test taker off? My fear is no matter how much drilling a game like this could pop up and completely shatter my ability to answer questions in a feasible amount of time. With games like this, are you better able to decipher their language after practice or is kind of one of things where you have to brute force your way through the game to you simply 'get it.'

Any advice/comments are appreciated!

Dude, the 7sage video posted above me should answer any/all technical details associated with this game. Moving on to a broader topic...you're never going to be able to "guarantee" your ability to always perform perfectly on every LG game. All you can do (all anyone can do) is solidify their foundations and reduce their odds of dropping questions.

There can and will always be statistical outlier questions, games, sections and tests. But, as I see it, the harder the logic game section, the greater my opportunity to separate myself from the high-160's players and, the higher likelihood of a fovgiving the curve on the test. Tough questions should be viewed as a chance to shine, not something that should freak you out. If you're prepared, smile a little on the inside, and imagine all those poor suckers who haven't prepped like you have experiencing full-blown seizures. Then, take a breath, and knock it the fuck out.

Good luck man!

[ayylmao]

Hey all,

I hope everyone's studying is going well! During my drilling I came across a game that frankly shook me, not so much because the questions were difficult per se, but the verbiage used in the game was strange. Phrases like "has one or more specialties, and any two "professors hired in the same year or in consecutive years do not have a specialty in common" definitely put a twist on things.

My question is how do we account for variances like this where the lsat deviates so far from "normal" language that it throws the test taker off? My fear is no matter how much drilling a game like this could pop up and completely shatter my ability to answer questions in a feasible amount of time. With games like this, are you better able to decipher their language after practice or is kind of one of things where you have to brute force your way through the game to you simply 'get it.'

Any advice/comments are appreciated!

Dude, the 7sage video posted above me should answer any/all technical details associated with this game. Moving on to a broader topic...you're never going to be able to "guarantee" your ability to always perform perfectly on every LG game. All you can do (all anyone can do) is solidify their foundations and reduce their odds of dropping questions.

There can and will always be statistical outlier questions, games, sections and tests. But, as I see it, the harder the logic game section, the greater my opportunity to separate myself from the high-160's players and, the higher likelihood of a fovgiving the curve on the test. Tough questions should be viewed as a chance to shine, not something that should freak you out. If you're prepared, smile a little on the inside, and imagine all those poor suckers who haven't prepped like you have experiencing full-blown seizures. Then, take a breath, and knock it the fuck out.

Good luck man!

Ponderingmeerkat for Pulitzer prize 2k16!

[New_Spice180]

Hey all,

I hope everyone's studying is going well! During my drilling I came across a game that frankly shook me, not so much because the questions were difficult per se, but the verbiage used in the game was strange. Phrases like "has one or more specialties, and any two "professors hired in the same year or in consecutive years do not have a specialty in common" definitely put a twist on things.

My question is how do we account for variances like this where the lsat deviates so far from "normal" language that it throws the test taker off? My fear is no matter how much drilling a game like this could pop up and completely shatter my ability to answer questions in a feasible amount of time. With games like this, are you better able to decipher their language after practice or is kind of one of things where you have to brute force your way through the game to you simply 'get it.'

Any advice/comments are appreciated!

Dude, the 7sage video posted above me should answer any/all technical details associated with this game. Moving on to a broader topic...you're never going to be able to "guarantee" your ability to always perform perfectly on every LG game. All you can do (all anyone can do) is solidify their foundations and reduce their odds of dropping questions.

There can and will always be statistical outlier questions, games, sections and tests. But, as I see it, the harder the logic game section, the greater my opportunity to separate myself from the high-160's players and, the higher likelihood of a fovgiving the curve on the test. Tough questions should be viewed as a chance to shine, not something that should freak you out. If you're prepared, smile a little on the inside, and imagine all those poor suckers who haven't prepped like you have experiencing full-blown seizures. Then, take a breath, and knock it the fuck out.

Good luck man!

Ponderingmeerkat for Pulitzer prize 2k16!

One hell of a speech there! Thanks, I really needed that.