The Potential Harm of LG Target Times

danielbrowning208

If you have ever looked at the comments on games, you will have probably noticed a plethora of comments pertaining to the target time, so I wanted to share a few thoughts on these targets.

1. Target times are subjective. Although there is a reasonable degree of consistency with respect to target times given the ability to compare games, these times are still based on a subjective evaluation of the game's difficulty and time consumption.

2. Target times are helpful in their appropriate context. Target times, which are, in my opinion, properly used as a general guide, can be helpful in determining whether you mastered a game or whether you need to try it a few more times. In short, I think target times should be used as a heuristic rather than gospel or an end in itself.

3. Target times have a potential to be harmful when taken out of their appropriate context. Unless you are extraordinarily gifted in LG, the strategies to get certain games down to their target times may not be the strategies that will make you successful in LG on the real LSAT. Given the anxiety of test day and the fact that these games are entirely new, you won't always be able to rely on memorized inferences and game boards. For this reason, the best test takers I know have a process for attacking games. This process incorporates timing, skipping, how you read the questions, and even where you write down the rules. You want to make LG as simple as possible so that you can overcome the anxieties and the indeterminacy of test day. The process provides a structure of normalcy and habit amidst the chaos of test day. While it may be possible to get all games down to their target times in your practice, this should not be done at the expense of process and good habits. Hence, the potential harm of target times is to enforce sloppy habits and take away from a structured process.

4. Practice for process, not just for time. In your practice, the target times for LG should be a part of a more complete picture. Ask, "Did I follow my process (which includes timing)?" rather than "Did I hit the target time?". As you improve in games and follow a well-designed process, timing will come. However, if you just practice for time, you might not develop a well-designed process. And this makes you more vulnerable to mistakes on test day. If you go perfect in LG on test day, no one is going to care that you did a game in 6 minutes rather than its target time of 5.

Sandwichelle

Wow! Thank you so much for your insight on this. I have been drilling some of the LG problem sets thinking about this very issue. I think you're absolutely correct regarding the "target times." I think rushing too much while learning technique is counterintuitive.
I have also listened to a few podcasts with high-scoring "Sages" and several have paralleled this sentiment.
I have been inclined to try to beat the clock to prove my aptitude, but considering the test taking experience as a whole, I'm just not sure of the added value.
All in all I have to keep reminding myself that although the press for time is a facet of the test, the real value lies in the understanding of the material and the practices to get to the correct answer! I am by no means slow, but sometimes the extra 30 seconds gets me disappointed.
I think, at least in my case, that I'll adopt a far less important emphasis on speed from now on. Thanks again for posting this topic!

Trusttheprocess

I would definitely second this!!!

For example, target times will not be fruitful for students who require accomodations.

I think one thing that goes heavily understated when trying to full-proof is being critical of your process. It is something that I wish to write a large post about it one day to share my insight.......