Theory about Vanilla LG

OlamHafuch

Over at blueprint.com, someone posted predictions before the Sep. LSAT. He predicted (correctly, it turns out) that the LG section would not have any weird games. He thinks that this will be the norm in the future, because LSAC is scared of turning off potential test takers who might take the GRE instead. Wondering about what others think about this. Plausible, or not?

saf_5029

No, if LSAC keeps having -10, and -9 curves they are just likely to lose test takers than if they have a difficult game with a -14 curve.

Seeking Perfection

Plausible is not a high bar to clear. So yes!

Logic games is the most foreign section to most test takers and therefore the section in which people benefit from studying the most. So easier logic games make it easier for test takers with little prep, but well honed reasoning and reading skills to take the test with little to no prep. This makes the test more like the GRE where noone really needs to commit months let alone years of time to studying.

However, let's look at alternate explanations. The first is that the difficulty of the sections is random. The human mind likes to make patterns out of repeated events and discern an explanation, but if you flip a coin 80 times there will be plenty of 3 or 4 in a row streaks of heads (hard logic games) and tails (easy logic games). It doesn't have to mean anything or be driven by anything other than chance.

Another possibility is that there is a trend driven by something other than competition with the GRE. It seemed to me when taking PT's that the last 10 or 15 tests have tended to feature fairly easy games sections with harder reading comp sections. If the trend preceded the widespread threat of the GRE being used for admissions to law school then the trend would not be in response to the changes in policy around the GRE.

So there are three possibilities: there is no trend, there is a trend driven by the GRE, and there is a trend driven by something other than the GRE. I lean equally toward the laddet two, but concede that I have a natural tendency to too quickly discount the first.

Practically, for the law school applicant applying using the LSAT, we can defray the risk of getting an unfavorable test for our abilities by preparing early and having time to take it as many times as we need to get a favorable test. That will be easier with 6 takes a year and unlimited retakes.

For instance, I am relatively weak on games and needed an easy games section. I took first in February where the section may or may not have been considered easy by the objective observer, but it wasn't easy enough for me to finish. I took again in September (after more studying and foolproofing, but still sometimes struggling to finish logic games sections) and finished (though I did miss a question). The harder reading comp didn't hurt me at all since that and LR are my strengths.

If you prefer a hard logic games section because you are that good at games and could benefit from the easier curve for the other sections, there are now 6 chances a year instead of 4 so unless the trend is really strong you should still be able to take a test with a hard games section provided you take enough tests. It's an expensive way to gain points though, given the cost of taking the LSAT.

OlamHafuch

I love this response! I think you'll make a great lawyer @"Seeking Perfection"

Alex

@"Seeking Perfection" always with the well-reasoned, sensible take on things.

I also think you'll make a great lawyer!