Subscription pricing
I normally crush the LG section and I found it really hard. I couldn't get past a few inconsistencies (obviously on my end). But I would like to know just quick responses. Harder, typical, or easier than usual?
3
54 comments
I’d say unless you made a major mistake, sounds like you’ll be fine. I felt like LG on the Feb test was so generous. I had two LG sections and there was only 1 substitution q—unlike Dec. The games were simple in structure. They added twists and tried to switch how elements were referenced. Some of the twists were sneakier than others. Looks to me like you’ll be fine.
I think ppl tried to worry about prerequisites when only 1 was definitely assigned and 2 was a possibility. It didn’t need to be considered(placed) at all in the setup- just noted. I waited for the qs to bring it up. Didn’t worry about creating worlds either, just noted the distribution possibilities. This section definitely punished those who had to nail solved worlds before going into the qs.
I think @nessak130467 said it the best. I did the same exact thing as mentioned and have to say it sounds like a lot of people were caught off-guard with sneaky references and setting up on that last game. I, in particular, ran out of time but I was thankful to have finished all the games; ultimately guessed on the very last question.
But, I must say, I can tell the LSAT writers were relying a bit more on their creativity on this test. Or, maybe it's just me.
@adamarianhuber872 said:
What is "fool-proofing"?
And yes, the "real" LG section wasn't necessarily harder, but there was something about the first two games that took a little longer than I would have liked, the third game was different enough to trip me up, and the fourth game was standard, but again, just a little bit harder than normal to make the entire section a little too rough for my liking.
I depended on that 0 to -1 LG score to make my target score, but I'm pretty sure I hit between 4-7 points under my target raw because LSAC decided to kick me in the teeth. Who's going to Puerto Rico with me!
There are many who will say that the strength of the logic games has only increased since the use of the substitution rule change started showing up, but I think that the general difficulty level of the combined 4 games is higher in the more recent PT's. I would imagine there are many people drilling -0 or -1 on PT's #1-40's or 50 that would show a score decrease on #70-83.
What is "fool-proofing"?
And yes, the "real" LG section wasn't necessarily harder, but there was something about the first two games that took a little longer than I would have liked, the third game was different enough to trip me up, and the fourth game was standard, but again, just a little bit harder than normal to make the entire section a little too rough for my liking.
I depended on that 0 to -1 LG score to make my target score, but I'm pretty sure I hit between 4-7 points under my target raw because LSAC decided to kick me in the teeth. Who's going to Puerto Rico with me!
@williamjchun98 said:
@mickeycaleb788 said:
There was 23 q's on the LG, a 27 RC, and both LRs were 25... for a total of 100 questions. 1 less than the usual 101 but not unheard of.> @williamjchun98 said:
Can we ask how many were on each game in the real LG section? If yes, I hereby ask?
Thanks. But what about the number of questions on each of the 4 LG games - 5 6 7 5 - or something like that?
I haven't seen that information anywhere, sorry. Just knew the question totals from sections because of other posts. I don't know how that would really help you determine which was your experimental section anyways, haha. That's pretty detailed.
@mickeycaleb788 said:
There was 23 q's on the LG, a 27 RC, and both LRs were 25... for a total of 100 questions. 1 less than the usual 101 but not unheard of.> @williamjchun98 said:
Can we ask how many were on each game in the real LG section? If yes, I hereby ask?
Thanks. But what about the number of questions on each of the 4 LG games - 5 6 7 5 - or something like that?
@paulwpederson403 said:
I felt super uncertain about the games for this test too. These games were super untraditional. I felt like all of them had a twist one way or another. Is this maybe what the LSAT is heading towards? Either way, I felt uneasy so I totally know what you mean!
I feel the same as you!
I felt super uncertain about the games for this test too. These games were super untraditional. I felt like all of them had a twist one way or another. Is this maybe what the LSAT is heading towards? Either way, I felt uneasy so I totally know what you mean!
Wow- I butchered this test! I went into it not taking a full test and also did not time myself at all! I spent a bunch of time doing questions and watched a ton of videos that explained the types of questions to expect and how to approach them- specifically LR. Games I spent the least amount of time and RC I kind of just thought I would be ok regardless. Wow was I wrong! Came home signed up immediately with 7 sage. Looking forward to improving in each section during the lead up to December! $180.00 lesson lol. Glad I went through that-learned a bunch!
There was 23 q's on the LG, a 27 RC, and both LRs were 25... for a total of 100 questions. 1 less than the usual 101 but not unheard of.> @williamjchun98 said:
Can we ask how many were on each game in the real LG section? If yes, I hereby ask?
Can we ask how many were on each game in the real LG section? If yes, I hereby ask?
I’d say unless you made a major mistake, sounds like you’ll be fine. I felt like LG on the Feb test was so generous. I had two LG sections and there was only 1 substitution q—unlike Dec. The games were simple in structure. They added twists and tried to switch how elements were referenced. Some of the twists were sneakier than others. Looks to me like you’ll be fine.
I think ppl tried to worry about prerequisites when only 1 was definitely assigned and 2 was a possibility. It didn’t need to be considered(placed) at all in the setup- just noted. I waited for the qs to bring it up. Didn’t worry about creating worlds either, just noted the distribution possibilities. This section definitely punished those who had to nail solved worlds before going into the qs.
I agree. I was using the same approach with the 4th game, although I ended up running out of time. I don't think there were necessarily a ton of inferences that needed to be made upfront.
@mcglazo260 said:
Ugh you guys are making me panic. I thought I did well in games (had only the real section) but now I'm not so sure. The woman/man one was hard upon first glance but then it became a basic game type with a twist (will not say which type to avoid violating lsac rules) after I organized it in my head. The upper and lower one I just kind of split the board game into different possibilities and kept it organized in my head. I barely remember the first since that was long-ish by pretty basic. The last one I only inferred that one class had a prerequisite and just remembered that as I went through the questions and diag- was in a time crunch for that too. How screwed am I?
I’d say unless you made a major mistake, sounds like you’ll be fine. I felt like LG on the Feb test was so generous. I had two LG sections and there was only 1 substitution q—unlike Dec. The games were simple in structure. They added twists and tried to switch how elements were referenced. Some of the twists were sneakier than others. Looks to me like you’ll be fine.
I think ppl tried to worry about prerequisites when only 1 was definitely assigned and 2 was a possibility. It didn’t need to be considered(placed) at all in the setup- just noted. I waited for the qs to bring it up. Didn’t worry about creating worlds either, just noted the distribution possibilities. This section definitely punished those who had to nail solved worlds before going into the qs.
I suck at LGs and found the games to be more difficult than normal, got 3/4 games, didn't have enough time to finish the last one. Found the LR and RC to be average.
@mcglazo260 I did everything you just shared... but ran out of time for two questions on the economics classes game. I hope we are not screwed...
@mcglazo260 said:
. . . How screwed am I?
Lol sounds like you did fine whereas a ton of us others feel as if we may have struggled.
Ugh you guys are making me panic. I thought I did well in games (had only the real section) but now I'm not so sure. The woman/man one was hard upon first glance but then it became a basic game type with a twist (will not say which type to avoid violating lsac rules) after I organized it in my head. The upper and lower one I just kind of split the board game into different possibilities and kept it organized in my head. I barely remember the first since that was long-ish by pretty basic. The last one I only inferred that one class had a prerequisite and just remembered that as I went through the questions and diag- was in a time crunch for that too. How screwed am I?
@katieshuter1737 said:
LG is usually my best section (it was my worst until I foolproofed like crazy) and I found this LG to be particularly difficult.
Not because of any crazy rules or hard inferences, but because of how odd the rules were. I can see how Feb's LG was easy/normal for those who can apply their knowledge easily, but difficult for those who are accustomed to regurgitating known game boards/inferences/rules.
I am the latter (I rely on getting by LG through recognition and familiarity) and I had a really hard time with diagramming the games. Like the robbery game, I had no idea how to diagram the sounds. Same with the econ game and the prerequisite thing. I ended up getting so nervous with the unfamiliarity that I choked and bombed the entire section.
I struggled with this too, especially in the economics game, which I barely diagrammed at all because of time-crunch panic mode. Not sure how much it matters to you at this point, but I just went with subscripts and the noises weren't too much trouble, especially since they were mostly interchangeable. It still took me way longer than I'd have liked to get through that game.
I had LG - LR - LG - RC - LR so I took an experimental LG and the real.
I thought the experimental LG with the items going to the fairs was incredibly hard... So much freedom of movement that it was hard to make inferences. The first 3 were pretty simple and I got to that last game with over 10 minutes left but the amount of brute forcing necessary left me rushing answers. Of course, I could have just missed a few key pieces of information but I was very happy to find out it was the experimental. It felt like they purposely gave 3 easy ones so they could gauge the difficult level of that last game... Maybe the first 3 were to qualify the basic skill level of the testers so they could get a lot of information on the scale of difficulty of the last game. It's probably not hard for them to make easy games... and it's probably the most important that they have a correctly tuned "hard game" for the game 4 of future LSATs.
As for the real LG section... the first game was surprisingly easy and straightforward. The upper/lower hall didn't have any tricks either and inferences to limit the game board could be made. The crime scene game with the sounds made me pause for a little bit... The setup didn't make it readily apparent how to setup which variables you were gonna use. The wording was much different than usual and I had to re-do the coding of my variables once before I started but a simple second-letter designator on the noises helped clear up confusion and the game was easier to visualize and map from there. I could definitely see how it would throw people off from beginning (as it did to me) and cause problems with recovery if they already felt like they weren't ahead of time.
The last game on the real section about economics with prereqs definitely had a lot more to keep track of! At first it appears as manageable to visualize the moving pieces in your head as the first 3 games but then you add in the prereq (which could move too!) and all the interplay between that and then the possible solutions are not more open-ended but they also go 3+ layers deep! It makes it MUCH harder to eliminate answer choices by making a quick inference or playing out half of a scenario in your head because you can't!!! It takes a lot of time to make 3 inferences per answer choice even if you could work through it in your head. Definitely needed to get to the last game with some time to spare if you wanted to be confident in your answer choices. It makes me think that you really needed to be solid on your basic mechanics for the upper hall/lower hall to power through and then work through the little adversity and get a little creative to not spend too much time on the crime scene game so that you would have the time necessary for the last game which was clearly a big time sink.
I couldn't work through every answer choice on the last game because of the time required so I had to take the strategy of working my way through the answer choices until I got one that worked out, circled it, and moved on without checking the rest of the answer choices. It wasn't 100% confidence like I would want, but I figured in the situation that it was my best bet for getting a somewhat good answer choice for the remaining problems.
LG is usually my best section (it was my worst until I foolproofed like crazy) and I found this LG to be particularly difficult.
Not because of any crazy rules or hard inferences, but because of how odd the rules were. I can see how Feb's LG was easy/normal for those who can apply their knowledge easily, but difficult for those who are accustomed to regurgitating known game boards/inferences/rules.
I am the latter (I rely on getting by LG through recognition and familiarity) and I had a really hard time with diagramming the games. Like the robbery game, I had no idea how to diagram the sounds. Same with the econ game and the prerequisite thing. I ended up getting so nervous with the unfamiliarity that I choked and bombed the entire section.
@jchamberlainf946 thanks for tagging! It's been updated now.
Hi @shanebek855,
Can you move this thread to February 2018 category? It will be easier to find information about the undisclosed test for people in the future or LSAT historians.
Tagging: @jhaldy10325 @williamjchun98
100% threw me off too. For that game, I just made the O inference and it helped a bit. That was a hard game.
@bpocrass997 said:
The Prerequisite thing really messed with me I think because I was being literal with the word instead of just treating it as a category. Was I the only one getting thrown off by that? Very possible because I was obviously in rattled "test mode".
Totally thrown off by that.
The Prerequisite thing really messed with me I think because I was being literal with the word instead of just treating it as a category. Was I the only one getting thrown off by that? Very possible because I was obviously in rattled "test mode".
Honestly, how unlucky were we that we got a rare game as our third game? That really sucked. I felt like this test was pretty hard. For me, a good score is dependent upon whether or not my first LR was the experiemental. Unfortunately, I don’t think it was.