Recent trend for Logic Games?

Comments

• 9 Likes

  David Wayne Free Trial Member

  August 2014 edited August 2014 571 karma

  Aside from substitution questions and sequencing games with conditional rules (the former of which begin in the late 50's and the latter of which is best encapsulated in PT 52 game 4), there aren't any immensely different ideas in the more recent exams, nor or they definitively harder or easier according to any particular LSAT community consensus. The snakes and lizard game is considered to be one of the hardest games of all time and it appears in Preptest 27. A sequencing game in the late 60's is considered to be very hard (i won't spoil the specific test) but on the other hand, one of the tests' games between 68-72 (again, i won't spoil it) is considered by JY in his commentary to be an uncommonly easy set of games (you'll see when you watch the videos, as JY stresses this) and those games are indeed a cakewalk compared to some of the other tests of the recent era. They aren't reinventing the wheel; for instance, JY still uses Preptest 1 Game 3 as a prime example of how to learn sequencing fundamentals, and that game's ideas - from a game given as far back as June 1991 - are just as pertinent to the modern LSAT as most sequencing game in between. Of course, there are a few 'oddball' games that appear in the earlier tests that JY usually says are not especially relevant to the modern LSAT, although this conventional wisdom was debunked in February 2014 when a circular sequencing game was asked, and in June 2014 when a pattern game was asked. See February 1997 game 3 for an example of a pattern game so that you are prepared for it when you take the June 2014 exam, and check out Preptest 41 for an example of a circular sequencing game. The differences you claim to have seen in the 50's exams, unless you are speaking either about the appearance of conditional rules in sequencing or substitution questions, is a fiction you are imagining because of some unsubstantiated LSAT community consensus that the recent games are 'vastly' different from those asked in the past. Don't buy into it; read between the lines and see that all games call upon the same few archetypes.
  
  In short, there's no specific strategy you can really adopt to get an edge in your studying; just be comprehensively prepared and don't try too hard to outsmart the LSAT through spending too much time analyzing 'trends'.
• 1 Like

  vandyzach Free Trial Member

  August 2014 358 karma

  I'm with Christian- I don't think there are necessarily "trends". A large, general trend is that games are a little bit more open-ended than before as a general rule in that there are many possible worlds. It just seems to me (in my opinion) that this is the case.
  
  Each test is its own beast. PT 62 has really hard games, while there are other PTs in the 60s that have easier games.
  
  I really don't think there is a trend. If there is one, it would be that the test will likely include one game that is highly unusual. But you approach those like you do any other game, and read it multiple times if you need to.
  
  Good luck!
• 1 Like

  Will Edwards Alum Member Inactive Sage

  August 2014 175 karma

  I agree with vandyzach and Christian, there isn't really a trend, but like you I noticed a dip in my scores for the games in the tests you mention. It was really frustrating because I had been doing extremely well in the LG sections, between -0 and -2 tops and went down to something like -4/5, running out of time before the section was over.
  
  I attributed what happened to the fact that I had been doing so well, I had stopped practicing LG's in my spare time, instead focusing on LR and RC. But I believe now that the LG's are very much muscle-memory and you have to keep them fresh in your mind. Good news is I started practicing LG's regularly again and my scores went back up to pretty much where they were.
• Jason Zhang Alum Member

  September 2014 edited September 2014 11 karma

  Thank you for all the responses. I've been reviewing the LGs from PT 52-61 these days for the second time. I really found that the LGs from the PT 52-61 require less main diagrams. I've done LGs from PT 1-50 actually. Those LGs seem require decent main diagrams and good main diagrams would almost make the remaining questions fly, but it seems that the LGs from PT 52-61 are more flexible with the questions with few main diagrams to draw.
  
  In PT 29-38. I usually got 1-3 wrong.
  But in PT 52-61, it became 3-6.
  
  So I'm guessing that I spent unnecessary time trying to make main diagrams, which made me worse-off.
  
  Am I correct?