Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 12 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 111 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 29 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 636 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic
Related Discussions
1 Like
Having trouble with LR, especially post-PT 60
I'm not sure what it is but I can't seem to apply the methods of diagramming as easily to these questions. I did horribly on LR after improving quite a bit in the upper 50s PTs. Many of the NA questions were same in terms of difficulty, but the questions where inferences need to be drawn seem to make pretty big leaps in logic.
PT 60 absolutely destroyed me in LR. Felt way too abstract and I'm not sure how to go about answering such questions.
For some questions, I still can't understand the gap even after watching the video explanations. At this point I am getting frustrated of getting so many questions wrong. Has anyone done PT 60 onwards? How has your experience been with LR?
PT 60 absolutely destroyed me in LR. Felt way too abstract and I'm not sure how to go about answering such questions.
For some questions, I still can't understand the gap even after watching the video explanations. At this point I am getting frustrated of getting so many questions wrong. Has anyone done PT 60 onwards? How has your experience been with LR?
Comments
For LR, I don't think the logic is harder per se, but the answer choices are way more confusing. Even though I understood the stimulus and know what to look for, I can't quite burn through the answer choices because they are all so similar and the correct answer is usually only different by a single word.
And for games.. I don't know about you guys but this area certainly got a lot harder for me. I used to average -2 on games due to silly mistakes but starting from the late 50s, this section started to be where I lose bulk of my points at. Many of the newer games contain more 'global' questions which requires heavy usage of trial and error, and for people like me who are kinda sloppy, these questions are like mine fields.
I'm battling that damn RC!
I've definitely noticed a difference in all of the sections from the 40-60.
I think the games operate on a more abstract level. I feel you just have to be open minded and not try to cookie cut each game.
RC has gotten more difficult in my opinion.
LR seems fairly consistent as far as difficulty goes, though they have changed.
I also got -8 LR! -1 LG (lol i diagrammed a local question wrong...), -0 RC
S4 #20 (the one with preserving rain forest) tricked me so hard lol.. I almost wanted to just hide in my basement and never face the LSAT again.
During blind review I managed to correct a few of the 8, but I am gonna have to go over the video explanations until I 110% understand what I did wrong.
It's a total mind f@#$. I thought maybe it was just me but turns out to be a notoriously difficult PT. Jesus I was shocked by the LR Game RC combo attack haha.
nvm I'm taking PT 63 today.
I did well on 62. I got 8 wrong again in LR. Ended up with a good score though... dat curve.
CJ let me know if you want to go over it.
If anything, LGs now seem to conform heavily to the rules and tricks we learned in the syllabus. The games are in/out, sequencing, involve grouping, or are just an amalgamation (LSAT vocab word! #dealwithit) of each.
Reading comprehension has stayed about the same. There's a bit more emphasis on more open endedness when it comes to the questions, but for the most part the questions tend to focus on facts from the passage.
LR has become a new beast. The methodology has stayed the same for the most part, but the wording in the stimulus has gotten MUCH more abstract. At least in the older LSATs, the stimulus would make sense for the most part. Now, the stimulus sometimes says the craziest things that make you scratch your head. It makes sense logically but in english you can't help but say "WTF" lol..
Peeling that layer of abstraction is really hard, at least for me. Honestly I think the easier LR questions have become more manageable, but the harder ones tend to suck time away trying to just understand the stimulus.
I really gained a lot of insight from watching the 7sage timed video on how to solve a LG.
Is there anything like that for LR? I'd love to see JY and Jon destroy some timed LR questions.
With LG, I'd agree with you for maybe 2-3 of the games per section (but even so they don't quite conform to any one category anymore; it's always a hybrid sequence/group or something other) and then there's always 1-2 "random" games. Has anyone seen a basic linear/sequenceing game since maybe the 1999/2000 era of PTs? LOL
Off the top of my head, from more recent PTs, are:
- "Seven Nurses" (Game 4 PT 61): with the new rule of 'at least two in between variable x and variable y.' That opens up a larger set of possibilities and requires more brute force of trial and error instead of game-breaking inferences.
- "Mulch and Stone" (Game 3 from PT 60): no category for this. Sure you can identify the possibilities to make it a more manageable game, but most people were shocked when first seeing this.
- "Photographer and Writers' Assistants" (Game 4 from PT 60): granted a single game-changing inference would solve this one, you cannot deny it shocked most people upon first appearance.
- "Choosing Courses" (Game 4 from PT 58): sure it's an in/out game, but this was the absolute first I saw where you could not chain up the rules and instead had to write them all out separately (watch JY's video to see what I mean).
- "Toy Dinosaurs" (Game 3 from PT 57): need I say more?
Now each of these are completely manageable, even 'destroyable,' if you will upon doing it the second time (or after watching JY's videos). Now, I could totally just be the odd one out and am really slow/stupid at LG in general, but, I have had a hard time believing most people were able to do these comfortably, without error, within timeframe, upon first attempt. Each modern PT seems to carry with it a 'killer' game. I've been foolproofing all my games, of course, but it's hard to anticipate 'what's next?' Also the modern games seem to require more trial and error/brute force.
In terms of RC, I'd pretty much agree with you (I actually prefer the Comparative Passages), with the caveat that they probably added more Inference "read between the lines" questions, more "analogy/parallel" questions, and have less purely "find the fact" questions.
It is possible to get 100% accuracy in LGs. I got the dino game right, for example, during timed. It took me 12-13 minutes; it was just an in/out grouping game.
The games are combos of things we learned in the course. If you know how to solve an in/out game, and you know how to solve a sequencing game, you will be able to solve a combination in/out sequencing game, such as the game with 4 athletes from first to fourth, with one out.
What might make everyone here feel a little better is, the LSAT curve has been more lenient in recent years. Even for a perfect 180, you can still allow for -2, or -10/11 for a 170. If it's hard, it's hard for everyone else out there too.
I don't know why but I do better in the sections the grader deems "harder, and worse in the ones that are considered "easier."
I don't know what to do. I think I am screwed.