Does the LSAT Favor those w/Strong Verbal Abilities Forum

[Collegiate]

Testing wise I tend to have poor non-verbal abilities but strong verbal outcomes, I was wondering if this would be an advantage or disadvantage on the LSAT?

I ask as my quant scores have traditionally dragged me down in standardized testing but seeing that the LSAT doesn't have a traditional math component would this play to my advantage?

[nixy]

Best way to find out is take a diagnostic and find out what your current baseline is. The answer in a vacuum isn’t going to help you. You will probably have some advantage in RC, less clear about LR or LG, but a hypothetical advantage doesn’t say anything about how you personally will do on the LSAT. Maybe you’ll do better than you would on tests with a quant section, but that doesn’t say how you’ll do compared to other test takers.

[BrainsyK]

Yes, but to get any score worth getting, you're going to have to develop basic quantitative skills.

[Npret]

Testing wise I tend to have poor non-verbal abilities but strong verbal outcomes, I was wondering if this would be an advantage or disadvantage on the LSAT?

I ask as my quant scores have traditionally dragged me down in standardized testing but seeing that the LSAT doesn't have a traditional math component would this play to my advantage?

You personally may do better than you would on an exam that has math. You will still be scored against others who also have strong verbal abilities, so my answer is no, it won’t help you.

[LSATWiz.com]

It does but there is a way to reduce most LSAT questions into math-like formulas. I personally recommend concepts like informal logic to everyone adept enough to utilize them, because it' takes away the need to think too much, which can be draining over 100 questions. i'd still say strong verbal is the single best advantage to have because RC is the hardest to study.

[Sampson521]

Unequivocally, the LSAT favors verbal reasoning over mathematical reasoning.

For those that say the LSAT is actually mathematical, I would implore you take the GMAT and report back.

The LSAT doesn’t have you multiply primes, use algebra, or perform any other numerical problems. Sure, LG necessitates logic, but it doesn’t have you use ratios to find a 15% solution or multiply out weighted averages.

As someone who has big splits on standardized test between verbal and math, I would take high verbal 100 out of 100 on the LSAT.

[miskellyjohnson]

Just because the GMAT favors math MORE than the LSAT does not mean that the LSAT favors verbal more than math... Also, the GMAT math is pretty easy for anyone from a math background. Its mostly just about speed constraints in working with numbers and probabilities. Look at what you just described for the GMAT: multiply primes, "use algebra," use ratios. An honors student in high school could do all that. GMAT is just about drilling so you can do it fast enough that you dont end up wasting time on a given problem.

For what its worth, I took the GRE back when they had the old grading system. I got 800 on Math (perfect score, though it was only like 92 percentile) and something like a 540 in verbal (like mid 70th percentile, maybe).

I got 99.9 percentile on LSAT. The lack of vocabulary really helped me, and I found it very easy coming from a quant heavy background (think math heavy science background). LR and LG are both "mathematical," and even the RC I found to be very quantitative in the way its structured. It doesnt really ask about vocabulary or thematic questions. Just my experience.

[QContinuum]

For what its worth, I took the GRE back when they had the old grading system. I got 800 on Math (perfect score, though it was only like 92 percentile) and something like a 540 in verbal (like mid 70th percentile, maybe).

I got 99.9 percentile on LSAT. The lack of vocabulary really helped me, and I found it very easy coming from a quant heavy background (think math heavy science background). LR and LG are both "mathematical," and even the RC I found to be very quantitative in the way its structured. It doesnt really ask about vocabulary or thematic questions. Just my experience.

I had a very similar experience with the GRE and the LSAT. LSAT LR and RC isn't anything like the verbal sections of other standardized tests. I've always sucked bigtime on those, but took to LR and RC like a duck to water. I wouldn't call LR/RC quantitative, but they definitely test a different set of verbal skills than other standardized tests' verbal sections. It's more a test of logic. (And IMO, the skills tested by LR/RC are more important... what's the utility of testing obscure vocabulary no one ever uses in real life?)

[nixy]

I actually think the verbal GRE is a perfectly reasonable way of testing ability to handle the kind of reading/writing you deal with in many PhD programs. It's just another kind of RC test, not some kind of obscure vocab test. I don't actually see a lot of it as very different from the LSAT RC.

That said, I agree that a lot of the qualities that the LSAT tests fit with more quantitative strengths as well, where quantitative and logic overlap.

[LSATWiz.com]

Having tutored this test for a decade, I think debating this is silly.

Yes, the LSAT favors those with strong verbal abilities because it tests your ability to comprehend written material very quickly.

Yes, the LSAT favors those with strong mathematical abilities because it tests your ability to recognize, analyze and apply formulaic logic very quickly.

It favors both, which is not to say that you need to study mathematics or English or even read very often to get a 180 (in fact, two of the people I know who got a 180 are a standup comic/playwright and a construction worker). The end.

[Npret]

Unequivocally, the LSAT favors verbal reasoning over mathematical reasoning.

For those that say the LSAT is actually mathematical, I would implore you take the GMAT and report back.

The LSAT doesn’t have you multiply primes, use algebra, or perform any other numerical problems. Sure, LG necessitates logic, but it doesn’t have you use ratios to find a 15% solution or multiply out weighted averages.

As someone who has big splits on standardized test between verbal and math, I would take high verbal 100 out of 100 on the LSAT.

Have you actually taken the LSAT? Also most people can do the math you described - that’s basic high school math.

[cavalier1138]

If you go to one of those places offering online courses, I bet you can find a course in symbolic logic. It often gets listed under philosophy or computer science, but it'll teach the same thing.

Take that course. The material should actually translate quite well to an online format. It's going to teach you how to do mathematical reasoning but without numbers. I can't say it guarantees a perfect LG score, but if you take to the material well, it teaches you exactly how to think about logic games.

[PanjandrumOfReason]

If your question is simply, "Does the LSAT favor those with strong verbal abilities?," then the answer is yes. But the LSAT also favors those with strong quantitative abilities. The question of whether the LSAT favors those with strong verbal abilities more than it favors those with strong quantitative abilities is debatable.

Consider the average highest LSAT scores by major: https://www.lsac.org/sites/default/file ... ajor_0.pdf . The only majors with average highest LSAT scores above 160 are mathematics, classics, computer science, physics, biomedical engineering, industrial relations, environmental engineering, statistics, nuclear engineering, and astronomy, with statistics being the highest by a good margin and mathematics second. The fact that most of the highest scoring majors are quantitative fields doesn't necessarily mean that the LSAT favors quantitative skills more than it favors verbal skills, but it is perhaps evidence in support of that conclusion.