I've been reading about these different games that are apparently on the LSAT now? Are these really that much harder than the old games, or are people struggling with them on the test because they simply aren't expecting them? That is to say, are these new one's just as learnable if you can see them coming?
Comments
That's all I could think about when I turned the page to the last game on the December LSAT.
After I was blindsided by the computer virus game on the September LSAT, I went through and did all the games from PTs 1-17. They are a bit odd (aka not super easy, traditional setups all the time), and there was even a game similar to the computer virus one. It's good practice for what is probably going to become the norm.
If you really want some hard practice, the LG section on PT C has got to be the hardest LG section I have seen.
When I encountered unusual games, I would sometimes peek ahead to the questions to see what they were asking me to do. That informed my set up pretty frequently.
That said some of the new, out of the box games are more difficult to prepare for - at least through the traditional means - because they don't follow the same general templates as the majority of the games to date. This is why they are perceived as "harder". I would venture that they favor students who have an intuitive ability in the LG section more so than the traditional games do.
You can still do an awesome job on the LSAT, though . I see the change in LG as simply another factor to account for in determining one's LSAT strategy. We all have strengths and weaknesses and even if you're aiming for a perfect score, you can afford to let a couple questions go.
For the LG on PT 31 we have a structure that is very similar to what we would expect from a difficult or surprising section in the late 60s and 70s. For PT 31 we have two sequencing games that each hold a variation: Game 1 and Game 3. These are games that ideally one must have experience with in order to score high on this exam. These are the two games in which to break 20 correct on this section, have to be as close to perfect as possible in my estimation. The games themselves are moderately difficult in my estimation, but don't hold anything that we haven't prepped for: question 4 requires of us a game board that might not be the first one we reach for, but is certainly doable with a few sub game boards. In a similar vein the newer exams will inevitably have two games that fit this mold: 2 games out of the 4 that are familiar and should be completed within 6.5-7 minutes or so. Some of the newer sections fulfill this obligation with a 5 minute game. PT 74 actually has a 4 minute game!
PT 31 then has one of the hardest in and out games on record (the third hardest in my estimation/ranking) in Game 2. Really no matter how you approach this, the game is going to take 10.5-11.5 minutes, maybe more. This is the type of game that one should never overlook: it requires an intensely close reading of the rules and what the questions are specifically asking. Questions 9 and 13 are asking specifically about new and used CDs, yet if you skip that single word, as the analytics show, answer choices are provided that count all the CDs! Carry this skill with you: the LSAC isn't our friends, sometimes a question will hinge on our ability to understand precisely what is being asked to account for and what is being asked not to account for.
In addition to the 2 moderately easy/1 traditionally difficult pattern of PT 31 that relates to modern exams, PT 31 also has an oddball game! Game 4 is a game that could absolutely pass for a newer odd game. Here we have an unfamiliar task with a game board that at first glance is difficult to set up (well, was for me at least.) What we are doing for this game is not only delegating tasks into groups: days, but also delegating specific elements to those tasks within those days on the basis of a specialty. There is a running inference here that I don't quite think has been fully expressed, but it goes along the lines of: these task have to get done, meaning someone has to be available to do them. Meaning if we have a list of people doing these tasks that doesn't include George and Leanda, then who is going to do taping? A variation of this reoccurring inference is alive an well on PT 72 Game 4: if you can't pass to yourself and K and L cannot pass to J, who then must pass to J, seeing as though J must work?
Ultimately, I got -2 on this game last night because I failed to internalize the very basic rule of keeping T and P on separate days. Showing that like all games: rules are written for a reason.
So to sum up, PT 31 is one of several old sections that are "new" in the structure that they present to us. So to answer your question, in sort of a long winded way: I don't think newer sections are harder than older sections.
I practiced with both the new and the older LG's before the December test. Some of them are 2* games slid into the Game 4 slot simply because they are nontraditional, and some are legitimate, top-of-the-line 5* challenges.
I am happy to see the change, and agree with the philosophy behind it. Anything that can even the playing field between those who spend 1000's of dollars and 100's of hours and those with less of either resource (or both) is a good thing.
I just hope that the conversion score of each test accurately reflects the relative difficulty. If it does, you could see more -13/14 administrations in the years ahead. They even had -15's on some of the older tests, but the frequency of -0's on plug and play LGs killed those.
FWIW, I would be happy with -12 for December. I think the last two LG's were very difficult, but it seemed to me as if the rest of the test more than balanced that out. Obviously, I will not be disappointed to be wrong.
With newer games, people often get stuck on the "figure out the type stage," making it incredibly difficult o diagram, draw inferences, and move forward.
Given what we've seen over the past few years, I would say it's a safe bet to assume that the LSAC will continue to throw weird games our way.
This is why I want to keep working on LG and take the LSAT again. Even if I squeaked out a 170 with a -6 on LG, I'd rather not let one section define my performance.
I'm planning for either Feb/June and have my fingers crossed that despite all the indicators they go easy on LG