was the dino game kinda like the parakeets, finches, cage? Forum

[bakemono]

In that it was time consuming, and took one major inference to make the pain go away? I've been rattling my brain trying to figure out what it's similar to. I've read that someone thought it was a lot like the furniture/wood game but where the hell is that from?

[ruleser]

Look, let's get it simple and settled. In the spirit of not discussing particular questions/games as we all agreed, let's answer any questions anyone might have in this way:

There were no special games or other anywhere, there will be nothing that won't be relatively familiar and easy to crack when seated reviewing later.

This is a test not designed to be doable, but to categorize people. There are different level questions, but also sections. EVERY test has what I would call a 170+ section. You see, we all read a few books and take a course and PTs and THINK we should be able to get 175, but then why do only .5% actually do it?

I have gotten -0 on every type section, but never all in one PT or real T. Before I studied and took a course, either a game, RC, or an LR section would just be a bit undoable for some reason - a different, frustrating reason each time. YET each time my result was the same range: 160-162.

After learning more, taking a course, etc., now it never fails that something blows up - just like before - and sometimes its RC, sometimes LG, sometimes still LR even though that's supposedly my best section. YET each test my score is the same new range: 169-171.

It seems as if just because you can master a section with a -0 that you should then be able to do that from then on, and so be consistent 180. But reality is it doesn't matter if I go -0 on LG, something else happens. And what is really happening is that this a very well-designed test. It is designed to get a result that stratifies people.

So take a section on the recent test - there was nothing in particular in this game/question/story section or that that was undoable. Overall, the section - timewise, contentwise, and question difficulty wise - was scientifically designed so that all but .5% of the best minds on the planet will get a bunch wrong within the time frame. You think it was a cooincidence that suddenly an RC has a bunch of "everything is in this story EXCEPT", or that even the easy LG sections somehow take much more time than they seem they should?

That is the beauty/evil of the LSAT - it seems perfectly doable. You can learn LR, LG, RC, do a million practice, understand every section perfectly, be able to finish in time. Yet how often have you gotten 180? You don't - something always goes wrong - there is always a "170+" section designed to be doable by only .5 or so percent of smarties taking the exam. There is also a 160+ section that weeds people out there that many here probably didn't think much about. And, yes, a 150+ section. And it is just as they planned. You don't hit 160 one time, 180 the next, 140 the next. You always hit within a limited range. The test works.

So stop kicking yourself over this section or game or question. You did exactly where you are at. I could do every game in that section. Yet I missed a bunch, because of odd wording, looks, time, etc. That was by design. A handful - about .5% - managed to get that, and everything else. IF you were at the 175-180 level you would have adjusted flawlessly.

[Mosca]

It looks like you need a drink.

[ninab]

I completely agree with ruleser - this is exactly what I've noticed with the tests also. A lot of thought and effort goes into creating these tests. If the testmakers don't adapt to the amount of prep that testtakers have access to, then everyone would be able to make 180.

But still - I'm curious to know - which prev game the dino game was most similar to?

[bakemono]

whoa, i didn't even take the test, and i totally agree with you. I'm in the same score range as you are currently, and i definitely think there is at least one section per test that seems to be harder than the rest. I got -1 one LR section and -4 on the next LR section. BTW, LR's my worst section.

The problem is that I depend on getting a near perfect score on LG to almost guarantee a 170+. It just seemed to me from reading about the dino game that it kinda seemed like the parakeet game, because it relied on one key inference to either make the game time-consuming as all hell, or just another LG.

I'm not even necessarily anxious, just curious what this monster of a game looks like. I'm also curious whether it's unprepared (by unprepared i mean in terms of tls standards) people who view this game as difficult since we also had a small but noticeable share of people saying this game was completely doable. I remember people whining about the van game not too long ago, but it took me about 7 minutes to do. I believe there was only 5 questions in that game too, right?

In short, i want to know if this game is just hype.

[KDLMaj]

The first response poster hit the nail on the head.

There will *always* be "something" on the test to make it more challenging, and yet test takers freak out and lose their sh*t every time it happens. The solution is obvious- learn better section management and self-regulation skills during the exam (two things that very few test takers ever focus on) so that when the inevitable tough spot shows up you don't crash and drag down the rest of the test. But very few people will realize this. People want to obsess over content, but section management is half of the battle with this exam.

The students who get in trouble are the ones with lopsided skill sets. Yes if you're REALLY good at one section and REALLY bad at another, then where the challenging questions show up matters. But it never matters half as much as students think. I can tell you right now that as an LSAT instructor, the vast majority of the time a student (after the fact of course) points to a particular area of the LSAT and tells me that's the part where they suddenly realized (read: decided) this test was hard, they don't start missing their points until *afterwards*.

Why? Because they psych themselves out. So stop psyching yourself out.

[ruleser]

The first response poster hit the nail on the head.

There will *always* be "something" on the test to make it more challenging, and yet test takers freak out and lose their sh*t every time it happens. The solution is obvious- learn better section management and self-regulation skills during the exam (two things that very few test takers ever focus on) so that when the inevitable tough spot shows up you don't crash and drag down the rest of the test. But very few people will realize this. People want to obsess over content, but section management is half of the battle with this exam.

The students who get in trouble are the ones with lopsided skill sets. Yes if you're REALLY good at one section and REALLY bad at another, then where the challenging questions show up matters. But it never matters half as much as students think. I can tell you right now that as an LSAT instructor, the vast majority of the time a student (after the fact of course) points to a particular area of the LSAT and tells me that's the part where they suddenly realized (read: decided) this test was hard, they don't start missing their points until *afterwards*.

Why? Because they psych themselves out. So stop psyching yourself out.

Thanks, and +1 to your comments: I surely missed just as many as any of the people freaking out in said section, but I never thought about it during the test or freaked after, because I viewed the test as a whole, and even a -6 still has you in 175 contention if you nail the rest. And within a section, if you hit "hard," do you melt down to -8 because you freak, or just assess which ones you move past and keep it -6? Makes all the difference in the end.

[willwash]

That is the exact reason Kaplan published LSAT 180/LSAT advanced. Every question in that book comes from the 170+ difficulty range. There is enough material in that book to make 2-3 complete PTs composed entirely of 170+ level questions and games. I'd recommend this book and focusing only on the very, very hard stuff.

Those 50 pound weights aren't going to get any lighter if all you are lifting is 30 pound weights.

[Shrimps]

Re Kaplan 180. Are the questions in it Kaplan's own, or are they from actual LSAT PTs?

[keg411]

Re Kaplan 180. Are the questions in it Kaplan's own, or are they from actual LSAT PTs?

Kaplan doesn't make up questions.

[Shrimps]

Then I'm not sure what the point of that book is, if I have almost all of the PTs already?

With all the hate on made-up test questions by Barron's et al. on this site, I actually wouldn't mind doing some games created by puzzle-game creators other than those who work for LSAC. Makes your brain work in different ways and makes you think outside the box.

Which actually is a good general question: is anyone aware of puzzle books that have puzzles similar to LSAT logic games? And please don't mention sudoku.

[FreeGuy]

And please don't mention sudoku.

KenKen

[tomwatts]

At the time, I thought of the dinos as being like the experienced and inexperienced geologists and radiobiologists in PT 35. The difference is that you don't know who's which color with the dinosaurs, whereas you do know who's which type of astronaut in PT 35. But they're still complicated In/Out games with more than one thing to keep track of (not just single elements, as in Bird in the Forest) and a lot of counting ("Well, I have five spaces for dinos to be in, and I've used three, so I have two more, and these two can't be together, so..." just like "Well, I need two radiobiologists and I already have one, but I need four people altogether and I already have two, so...").

There will always be something to make the LSAT hard, but there will always be something to make the questions similar to questions you've done before. That's what taking a standardized test means.

EDIT: Huh. Looking back on this now, I see that it was an ancient thread that someone revived to bring up Kaplan 180. I guess my comment is irrelevant and lame, then. My bad.

[willwash]

Then I'm not sure what the point of that book is, if I have almost all of the PTs already?

With all the hate on made-up test questions by Barron's et al. on this site, I actually wouldn't mind doing some games created by puzzle-game creators other than those who work for LSAC. Makes your brain work in different ways and makes you think outside the box.

Which actually is a good general question: is anyone aware of puzzle books that have puzzles similar to LSAT logic games? And please don't mention sudoku.

Minesweeper is good though once you get the hang of it it becomes so automatic you don't use your brain.

EDIT: The PennyPress logic puzzles books (check Wal Mart) are good too. 5 bucks will buy an insane number of puzzles. Most of them are the basic grid variety but some actually require more brain work to figure out the deductions.

Re Kaplan 180, it provides not only the hardest games, LRs, and RC sections, but also detailed explanations for each. If you don't care about explanations, then yes, I would just go with the PTs. If the original response post is correct and one of the four graded sections of each test is "hardest", then I would go about the task of isolating each one of those from each preptest, and rehashing new tests composed entirely of those sections. With ~60 PTs out there, 1/4 of that (the hardest from each test) works out to a good 15 uber difficult PTs.

[Mattalones]

Then I'm not sure what the point of that book is, if I have almost all of the PTs already?

With all the hate on made-up test questions by Barron's et al. on this site, I actually wouldn't mind doing some games created by puzzle-game creators other than those who work for LSAC. Makes your brain work in different ways and makes you think outside the box.

Which actually is a good general question: is anyone aware of puzzle books that have puzzles similar to LSAT logic games? And please don't mention sudoku.

Minesweeper is good though once you get the hang of it it becomes so automatic you don't use your brain.

Re Kaplan 180, it provides not only the hardest games, LRs, and RC sections, but also detailed explanations for each. If you don't care about explanations, then yes, I would just go with the PTs. If the original response post is correct and one of the four graded sections of each test is "hardest", then I would go about the task of isolating each one of those from each preptest, and rehashing new tests composed entirely of those sections. With ~60 PTs out there, 1/4 of that (the hardest from each test) works out to a good 15 uber difficult PTs.

In all the 4 times I've tried it, I haven't ever gotten the hang of it ... curse that game!!!!!!!!! CURSE THAT GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!