Having answered all the questions in Game 1 of the June 2007 LSAT, a couple final notes:

1)  There’s no scratch paper allowed on the LSAT, so you must write on your test pages in order to solve the games. Here’s what my test page for Game 1 looked like when I got done with it:

Game 1 completed test page

Continue reading ‘June 2007 LSAT, Game 1 Recap’ »

Time to wrap up Game 1 of the June 2007 LSAT. To answer question number 5, I’m going to once again lean heavily on the two worlds I made in my setup. Again, those look like this:

World 1:
  1      2     0/3   __   3/4  (where the third spot and the fifth spot can EACH be 3, but they can’t SIMULTANEOUSLY be 3).

World 2:
  2      4     0/1   __   1/3  (where the third spot and the fifth spot can EACH be 1, but they can’t SIMULTANEOUSLY be 1).

Continue reading ‘June 2007 LSAT, Game 1, #5’ »

Question number 4 in Game 1 of the June 2007 LSAT asks “Any of the following pairs could be the third and fourth digits, respectively, of an acceptable product code EXCEPT:” That’s a bit of a mouthful–let’s see if we can translate it. The word “respectively,” here, means “in that order.” And since we’re told that any of the pairs of digits COULD be third and fourth, EXCEPT one of the pairs, (the pair we’re looking for) that means the correct answer CANNOT be third and fourth. So another way of asking the question would have been “which one of the following cannot ever be the third and fourth digits, in that order?” Dammit, why didn’t they just say that?

Continue reading ‘June 2007 LSAT, Game 1, #4’ »

Here’s our setup for Game 1 of the June 2007 LSAT, and if you don’t already have the test, you’ll find it here. Question 3 says “If the third digit of an acceptable product code is not zero, which one of the following must be true?” Just like Question 1, this question requires us to make a new diagram that incorporates the new condition (third digit can’t be 0) with all of the original conditions. The question couldn’t be easier, if we simply apply the two worlds we developed in the initial setup.

Continue reading ‘June 2007 LSAT, Game 1, #3’ »

Two days ago, I discussed the setup and rules for Game 1 in Section 1 of the June 2007 LSAT. (You’ll find these explanations most useful if you print yourself a copy of the test and have it handy.)  And yesterday, I took a look at Question 1. Question 2 asks “Which one of the following must be true about any acceptable product code?” Unlike Question 1, Question 2 doesn’t give us any new information.  So we have to answer Question 2 solely based on the initial requirements of the game. (Important:  The new rule that was in play for Question 1 doesn’t apply for subsequent questions.)

Continue reading ‘June 2007 LSAT, Game 1, #2’ »

Yesterday, I discussed the setup and rules for Game 1 in Section 1 of the June 2007 LSAT. It’s a fairly straightforward and very familiar game–all we’re asked to do is put five things in order. This is the type of game that you’ve simply got to master if you’re going to do well on the Logic Games. One game similar to this appears on nearly every LSAT. The rest of the games in the section will tend to be harder than this. So there’s no use in rushing through or skipping this game.

For students who are just starting out, I recommend spending your entire 35 minutes, if necessary, on this first game. The point is this: Speed, on the LSAT, comes from accuracy. You need to be able to get each of the questions on this game right with certainty. Once you can do that (no matter how long it takes) you’ll eventually be able to go faster. I’ve seen students go from the low single digits on the Logic Games (getting 3 or 4 questions correct) to scoring perfectly on the Games (23 or 24 correct). But you have to walk before you can run. So slow down, make some inferences (see yesterday’s post  for my definition of “making inferences”) and answer the questions with certainty. It’s easier than you think.

Continue reading ‘June 2007 LSAT, Game 1, #1’ »

Logic Games are troubling for nearly every LSAT student I’ve ever met–on the first day of class. But Games are also, by far, the most teachable section of the test. On Logical Reasoning and Reading Comprehension, improvements tend to happen slowly, incrementally… like a long uphill march. On Logic Games, improvements tend to happen all of a sudden, in jumps and spurts… like launching off a trampoline. I’ve seen a zillion students walk into my classroom getting their asses kicked by Games. And I’ve seen a zillion students walk out of my classroom scoring perfectly on the Games. (It’s by far the most commonly fucked-up section. And it is also, by an even wider margin, the most common section where perfect scores are achieved.) This is the most fun section of the test, and it’s also, in large part, where I make my money.

Continue reading ‘June 2007 LSAT, Game 1 Setup’ »