Feb Test Logic Games

Comments

• m.c lshopeful Alum Member

  February 2018 614 karma

  @ilokmaca said:

  @"mickey.caleb" said:

  There was 23 q's on the LG, a 27 RC, and both LRs were 25... for a total of 100 questions. 1 less than the usual 101 but not unheard of.> @ilokmaca said:

  Can we ask how many were on each game in the real LG section? If yes, I hereby ask?

  Thanks. But what about the number of questions on each of the 4 LG games - 5 6 7 5 - or something like that?

  I haven't seen that information anywhere, sorry. Just knew the question totals from sections because of other posts. I don't know how that would really help you determine which was your experimental section anyways, haha. That's pretty detailed.
• adam.arian.huber Alum Member

  February 2018 9 karma

  What is "fool-proofing"?

  And yes, the "real" LG section wasn't necessarily harder, but there was something about the first two games that took a little longer than I would have liked, the third game was different enough to trip me up, and the fourth game was standard, but again, just a little bit harder than normal to make the entire section a little too rough for my liking.

  I depended on that 0 to -1 LG score to make my target score, but I'm pretty sure I hit between 4-7 points under my target raw because LSAC decided to kick me in the teeth. Who's going to Puerto Rico with me!
• m.c lshopeful Alum Member

  February 2018 614 karma

  @"adam.arian.huber" said:
  What is "fool-proofing"?

  And yes, the "real" LG section wasn't necessarily harder, but there was something about the first two games that took a little longer than I would have liked, the third game was different enough to trip me up, and the fourth game was standard, but again, just a little bit harder than normal to make the entire section a little too rough for my liking.

  I depended on that 0 to -1 LG score to make my target score, but I'm pretty sure I hit between 4-7 points under my target raw because LSAC decided to kick me in the teeth. Who's going to Puerto Rico with me!

  There are many who will say that the strength of the logic games has only increased since the use of the substitution rule change started showing up, but I think that the general difficulty level of the combined 4 games is higher in the more recent PT's. I would imagine there are many people drilling -0 or -1 on PT's #1-40's or 50 that would show a score decrease on #70-83.
• Lsat taker22 Alum Member

  February 2018 315 karma

  I’d say unless you made a major mistake, sounds like you’ll be fine. I felt like LG on the Feb test was so generous. I had two LG sections and there was only 1 substitution q—unlike Dec. The games were simple in structure. They added twists and tried to switch how elements were referenced. Some of the twists were sneakier than others. Looks to me like you’ll be fine.
  I think ppl tried to worry about prerequisites when only 1 was definitely assigned and 2 was a possibility. It didn’t need to be considered(placed) at all in the setup- just noted. I waited for the qs to bring it up. Didn’t worry about creating worlds either, just noted the distribution possibilities. This section definitely punished those who had to nail solved worlds before going into the qs.

  I think @"nessa.k13.0" said it the best. I did the same exact thing as mentioned and have to say it sounds like a lot of people were caught off-guard with sneaky references and setting up on that last game. I, in particular, ran out of time but I was thankful to have finished all the games; ultimately guessed on the very last question.

  But, I must say, I can tell the LSAT writers were relying a bit more on their creativity on this test. Or, maybe it's just me.