@ said:

@ said:

All of the "gotcha" methods like time sinks and games that are supposed to take abnormally long are counterproductive to the entire purpose of the test in the first place.

The time pressure is already going to make test takers perform worse than if they were allowed to not have to rush through sections, so all of the extra BS if anything is just another barrier in getting an accurate evaluation of someone's true capabilities on the test as opposed to if they are savvy regarding the methods the test makers use. Why should you be penalized if it takes you 2 minutes to answer questions as opposed to 1:30, or because you didn't complete a game you actually could've finished because you were wasting time with a time trap? That says more about the circumstance than what you are truly capable of.

Knowing to skip a game or passage has no translation to any skills but can put two equally capable people into entirely different brackets of scores, in turn giving them entirely different law school prospects. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Shouldn't we be less worried about others "cheating to get a higher score" and more so why the LSAT goes so far out of its way to make people jump through hoops that don't matter and are irrelevant to being a lawyer?

TL;DR - Worried about the wrong issues

I have a couple friends who are in law school and they say the skills they learned studying for the LSAT, they use in and out side of law school. One buddy from columbia uses conditional logic to break down scenarios on exams, also he can read through dense material looking for the relevant material quickly.

What the LSAT is testing for is your success in law school. In my opinion, it is a good indicator of how well of a law student you can be as the skills needed to get a fantastic score is transferable to law school studies.

If we all had unlimited time to do the test, than yes we can see our true and maximum potential. But we live in a world where getting the right answers quickly and efficiently is more valuable than whether you can eventually get the right answer.

There's no doubt that the content of the test is important, and concepts like conditional logic and having the ability to parse dense material is beneficial. I also get not making the test 100% direct because lawyers have to pay extensive attention to detail and will not always be presented information in a clear cut manner... I just feel it's over-doing it to have so many nuances that can drastically effect scores but at the end of the day don't translate to anything... It's definitely a two sided argument because I know partners working in NYC Biglaw that have said the LSAT was the most pointless thing and it never crossed their mind again after they took it.

Conditional logic is a foundation of the test so that's definitely a necessary skill to have. However, I'm not sure that someone being able to parse a case for the most relevant material faster than someone else can really matters. At the end of the day, it's about knowing the facts and if you have to spend an extra couple hours per week than person X breaking down readings for law school, that's on you to have the time management to fit that in. But that's a time management consideration, not necessarily an aptitude consideration that should determine what law school you will be successful at. The speed-accuracy tradeoff (faster = less accurate) has been studied and is supported in literature throughout behavioral neuroscience, so while you might be able to do things faster there's also more room for error.

Not saying unlimited time is necessary or even realistic, but if the AVERAGE test taker was able to go through the test at a comfortable speed, I think scores would more accurately reflect as well. It seems to me that the only people who can get through sections comfortably and accurately are those who score high 160s-170+.. so that's only the top 10 percent of all test takers. If a 150s scorer (50th percentile roughly) and 170s scorer both can take the test at a comfortable pace, then it becomes an equalizer and now we are actually seeing the difference in skill and ability to answer questions rather than who was better able to operate within the rushed time constraint.

Remember, this is an ENTRANCE exam... if they want to distinguish the top scorers sooo bad then I think subject tests like on the SAT or an "AP" exam could help those more than just making the test one size fits all.

Definitely see your points though!

I wanted to choose E but remembered JY say "NEVER attack a premise" a million times..

All of the "gotcha" methods like time sinks and games that are supposed to take abnormally long are counterproductive to the entire purpose of the test in the first place.

The time pressure is already going to make test takers perform worse than if they were allowed to not have to rush through sections, so all of the extra BS if anything is just another barrier in getting an accurate evaluation of someone's true capabilities on the test as opposed to if they are savvy regarding the methods the test makers use. Why should you be penalized if it takes you 2 minutes to answer questions as opposed to 1:30, or because you didn't complete a game you actually could've finished because you were wasting time with a time trap? That says more about the circumstance than what you are truly capable of.

Knowing to skip a game or passage has no translation to any skills but can put two equally capable people into entirely different brackets of scores, in turn giving them entirely different law school prospects. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Shouldn't we be less worried about others "cheating to get a higher score" and more so why the LSAT goes so far out of its way to make people jump through hoops that don't matter and are irrelevant to being a lawyer?

TL;DR - Worried about the wrong issues

I had LR - LG - RC.

LR wasnt too difficult, there were a lot of questions with dialogue. LG was easy for 1st and 3rd game but 2nd game tripped me up because of two conditional rules that I had a hard time putting together. LG induces the most anxiety for me and ended up skipping 2nd game after answering 3 questions bc I knew I was taking too long... had heard about the 4th game being ridiculous so after finishing 3rd game I went back to finish 2nd and ended up guessing the last 4 answers ...

RC was surprisingly straightforward and comprehensible. Talked about a Nigerian author, comparative passage was about privatization, grass v. tree bacteria, and I forgot what the other passage was. Usually I rarely get to all 4 passages but I was able to read all of them, had 3 q’s flagged that I went back to and chose between the last two answers as time ran out. Took the July Flex and felt this test LR was way easier but other sections were about the same.

Hopefully did way better than in July 😂

I started off reading the third paragraph on one of the RC passages bc my screen somehow shifted down when I clicked to the next passage🥴 threw my rhythm off