Are these "new" games here to stay?

Comments

• 6 Likes

  inactive Alum Member

  December 2016 12637 karma

  They're not necessarily hard, just different. People tend to panic when they see things they're not familiar with, especially in tests, and end up overthinking it or going about it the wrong way. I've seen a lot of people say that the hard game in the Sept. LSAT was tough on test day but super easy once they took it home and redid it.
• 1 Like

  combsni Free Trial Member

  December 2016 652 karma

  I'd say so. Recently, an administrator with LSAC said that companies like Powerscore have made the games too easy and that they were defeating the purpose of the games.
• 2 Likes

  Alex Alum Member ⭐

  December 2016 23929 karma

  @"Dillon A. Wright" said:
  They're not necessarily hard, just different. People tend to panic when they see things they're not familiar with, especially in tests, and end up overthinking it or going about it the wrong way. I've seen a lot of people say that the hard game in the Sept. LSAT was tough on test day but super easy once they took it home and redid it.
  

  Yeah. If you show an old logic game and a new logic game to someone who has never seen a logic game before, they don't think one is harder than the other. So I tend to think that Dillon is correct and they are just different.
• 5 Likes

  stgl1230 Member

  December 2016 821 karma

  Probably. I think in one of JY's video explanations for the September LSAT computer virus LG, he said something like "I'm now more surprised when there ISN'T an unusual game than when there is one."
  
  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.
• TheDesertGrandfather Free Trial Member

  December 2016 116 karma

  Are there still diagraming methods for the new games that suffice to systematically find answers without having to be...wishy washy about it?
• 1 Like

  stgl1230 Member

  December 2016 821 karma

  @TheDesertGrandfather said:
  Are there still diagraming methods for the new games that suffice to systematically find answers without having to be...wishy washy about it?
  

  You might find something that works for you, but personally I just learned to be flexible. I'd really focus on having the basics down for grouping/sequencing games first. Then when you see unusual games you can kind of see how to use your skill set from "normal" games to fit a new scenario.
  
  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.
• desire2learn Member

  December 2016 1171 karma

  They are different but not necessarily more difficult. There are still definitely psuedo similar games throughout the old PTs. You just need to be thorough with exhausting old games as be VERY good with the "usual" games so you have maximum time on the new ones.
• TheMikey Alum Member

  December 2016 4196 karma

  I think the weird games are here to stay and they're now the norm. I think the rareness of how the weird games showed up before, will now become the rareness of no weird game showing up in the future.
• SherryS1 Member

  December 2016 477 karma

  Like @"Alex Divine" said, it's unlikely that someone with no background seeing both games will flag one as necessarily harder.
  
  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.
• 4 Likes

  BinghamtonDave Alum Member ⭐ 🍌🍌

  December 2016 edited December 2016 8716 karma

  I was going to write something similar to this thread recently, I actually don't think that the new LG sections are really that new in their structure. I might be one of only a few to think this but if you have a chance, PT 31's LG section is one of several older sections that I believe are illustrative in this regard.
  
  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.
• 3 Likes

  Cant Get Right Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 🍌 7Sage Tutor

  December 2016 27902 karma

  I agree that this is the new norm. We just need to adjust our expectations. If I had it to do all over again, I might place increased value on the earlier tests. Systematic foolproofing continues to be important, but I'd probably use maybe the mid 40s through the 50s/mid 60s for that instead of 1 through 35. What used to be throwaway games are now really important, and it'll be good to run into those after we know what we're doing in LG rather than in our initial learning process. It's not so much that we're likely to see those particular games, but it's important that we see unexpected game structures and the early tests are probably our best value for that now.
• chgunns Alum Member

  December 2016 edited December 2016 92 karma

  One downside of this new approach is there will be much wider variability in the "new" LGs. With LSAC consistently coming up with something "new", they are also coming up with things that have a less established track record.
  
  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.
• Alex Alum Member ⭐

  December 2016 23929 karma

  @"Cant Get Right" said:
  I agree that this is the new norm. We just need to adjust our expectations. If I had it to do all over again, I might place increased value on the earlier tests. Systematic foolproofing continues to be important, but I'd probably use maybe the mid 40s through the 50s/mid 60s for that instead of 1 through 35. What used to be throwaway games are now really important, and it'll be good to run into those after we know what we're doing in LG rather than in our initial learning process. It's not so much that we're likely to see those particular games, but it's important that we see unexpected game structures and the early tests are probably our best value for that now
  

  This is a really interesting point! I was actually thinking about this a few weeks back. I'm really interested in how the new games might change the dynamic of how we use the materials we already have.
  
• westcoastbestcoast Alum Member

  December 2016 edited December 2016 3788 karma

  In an LSAC forum, the representative actually told me that they create logic game types years in advance, and they continue to do so currently. He also added that all the predictions on LSAT forums are futile haha. So, some of the new game types that we see now could've been created in the early 2000s.
• MrSamIam Inactive ⭐

  December 2016 2086 karma

  @"Dillon A. Wright" said:
  They're not necessarily hard, just different.
  

  This! The reason why most people find games easy is because they're very mechanical. You see a game, you figure out the type, you diagram, find inferences, and you're set.
  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.
• TheMikey Alum Member

  December 2016 4196 karma

  I remember JY saying in a video somewhere that if you run into a strange LG, just conform it to a type of diagram you are comfortable with and know already. It'll make things easier, even if it takes you a bit longer than the other games in the set.
• 1 Like

  Stevie C Alum Member

  December 2016 645 karma

  I think it's still worth foolproofing old logic games. If you can crush the 2 standard games in 10-12 minutes, then you have 20+ minutes left to attack the the 2 games that are more challenging. If you haven't foolproofed the old games, then you'll get to the "Weird Game" with 5 minutes remaining and have very little chance at beating it.
  
  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.
• Brum Free Trial Member

  December 2016 edited January 2017 47 karma

  deleted
• 1 Like

  SherryS1 Member

  December 2016 477 karma

  @austin.brumbaugh I'm in your boat as well - LG is a section that was not at all intuitive for me. The timing for the LSAC's LG change is really rather unfortunate. I now feel a lot more pressure to have a near flawless grasp of the other sections.
  
  I'm planning for either Feb/June and have my fingers crossed that despite all the indicators they go easy on LG