What the heck happened with the new games???

Paul Caint

LG used to be my perfect section. But now that I'm getting to the late 60s of PTs, I'm finding myself missing multiple LG questions.

I'm freaking out right now because I missed -5 on PrepTest 68's LG, and -3 on PrepTest 67's LG. Before, I've consistently been doing -0 or at worst -1. Were these tests just anomalies??? Or are these indicative of future tests to come?

How have you all approached the more modern games differently than those in the early 60s/50s/40s?

LSATcantwin

I had to get use to the modern games before my score came back down. I think this is fairly common. Just get use to the odd ball's and make sure you do all your work up front with the rules and diagram's. The biggest thing that helped me was to not panic. Seeing odd games through me out of my confidence zone and I would miss a ton because I'd freak instead of focusing on the game.

Alex

@"Paul formulaic" said:
LG used to be my perfect section. But now that I'm getting to the late 60s of PTs, I'm finding myself missing multiple LG questions.

I'm freaking out right now because I missed -5 on PrepTest 68's LG, and -3 on PrepTest 67's LG. Before, I've consistently been doing -0 or at worst -1. Were these tests just anomalies??? Or are these indicative of future tests to come?

How have you all approached the more modern games differently than those in the early 60s/50s/40s?

they're overall less formulaic, though, I don't necessarily think you need to approach them differently. The main difference I find is that I often can't make as many inferences/game boards upfront causing me to sometimes have to attack the questions in a more rule-driven fashion.

Even the simple sequencing/ordering games have more complex conditional rules than the older tests. Then, of course, there are rule substitution questions that make things a bit more challenging.

I think if you used to be able to do well on games you just need practice and exposure because all of the skills needed to do well are the same.

Paul Caint

Do you all think that the modern games are generally more frontloaded? As in you are able to make more inferences in your game board, and less able to just get information from the questions, apply rules, and get the right answers?

LSATcantwin

@"Paul Caint" said:
Do you all think that the modern games are generally more frontloaded? As in you are able to make more inferences in your game board, and less able to just get information from the questions, apply rules, and get the right answers?

No. I think being able to see the game board makes them more approachable though. For instance, there was a logic game on a modern test about workers working on 4 different pieces of metal during the week. When I first tired it, I set the board up quickly and then flew into the questions. I went -3 on that game alone.

I later tired it again, and set the board up more methodically. I really sat there and said "what is going on in this game, what is actually happening?" I even tried to visualize it. Then made a board based on the rules. It became evident that the game revolved around two specific pieces at that point. Because I spent the time upfront, I understood the mechanics of the game much much better. I finished the game in 5min going -0 after this. If I had done it in the first place, and really got a grasp on the rules and the set up, I wouldn't have felt myself floundering around as much during the game. The brute force only gets you so far.

Alex

@"Paul Caint" said:
Do you all think that the modern games are generally more frontloaded? As in you are able to make more inferences in your game board, and less able to just get information from the questions, apply rules, and get the right answers?

No, if anything I've found the old games to be that way.

TheMikey

they're a little different but you should still approach them the same way.

I've noticed there are more questions that ask "X can be in ___ if which of the following is true?". I feel like this question type is barely seen in earlier tests, but is seen more in recent tests as I noticed today with PT 78. they're a bit different, but still, it's not like you don't know how to solve them. Just adjust to the small differences and you'll be back in your normal range

BinghamtonDave

PT 68 is a difficult LG section. I do not think it is indicative of the 60-80 range as a whole, but rather a cut above most of those in that set as far as overall difficulty. In my opinion, PT 68 should be along side PT C, PT 57 and PT 27 as really tough sets. I separate these from sets that contain a single difficult/odd game amongst a set of easier games: for example PT 36, with the hardest game of all time in my estimation surrounded by easier games. In the remainder of your PTs (from the late 60s to current day: I have not looked at PT 81's games), you will also come across not only sets anchored by a single difficult game surrounded by easier games, but also wholly banal sets that don't throw us any curveballs whatsoever.

You will also get a pretty constant appearance of the rule substitution questions in these newer sets: in one case that I can recall immediately you will see two rule substitution questions in one set of games! If you aren't already: get good at these. Note here that a few tests in this range omit a rule substitution question.

David

OlamHafuch

81 also has two substitution questions.

OlamHafuch

I don't know if this is the case, but if someone becomes adept (and hence, dependent) on splitting game boards, the later PTs can cause trouble, b/c I find that the games are less splitable. I personally think that whenever one comes across a game that he solves by splitting game boards up front, one should also try and solve it without splitting to practice those muscles. Also, by splitting game boards, solving games becomes more mechanical and one is less aware of how all the inferences are coming together.

Paul Caint

@BinghamtonDave That's really comforting to hear. I thought that PT 68's LG was inordinantely hard, especially the last game.

Thanks all for your replies. Perhaps all I need is an adjustment period, and chock up these performances as anomalous. Still learn from them but ya know.