Law School Discussion

Why would you be good at LR but bad at LG????

nathanielmark

Why would you be good at LR but bad at LG????
« on: June 05, 2004, 08:29:14 AM »
since both are based on logic, how could someone (like me), be very strong on LRs but crappy on games?

Could it be -

poor attention to detail?

poor short term memory?

lack of spatial reasoning ability?

something else?

what do you guys think?

SecretAgentFrank

  • ***
  • 39
  • GPA: 3.36, MBA GPA: 4.0, LSATs: TBD
    • MSN Messenger - frank.espositojr@mac.com
    • AOL Instant Messenger - SecrtAgentFrank
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Why would you be good at LR but bad at LG????
« Reply #1 on: June 05, 2004, 08:41:29 AM »
since both are based on logic, how could someone (like me), be very strong on LRs but crappy on games?

Could it be -

poor attention to detail?

poor short term memory?

lack of spatial reasoning ability?

something else?

what do you guys think?

I have the exact opposite problem. I can nail the LGs, but I hit a plateau on the LRs.

I don't think a poor short term memory or poor attention to detail are the culprits, because not having those things would affect LRs (which you say you do well on) and RCs (especially the long scientific passages - at least for me).

It could easily be spatial reasoning. You can draw diagrams until your face turns blue, but if you can't make use of that concept in your head, I imagine that would make LGs very difficult. It could very well be spatial reasoning, the whole left brain thing going on.

Or, you could just be psyching yourself out by telling yourself you can't get any better at Logical Games. I've noticed that a lot of the problems people I've been studying with have is that they build their own mental blocks. I know I did it to myself - no matter what, every time I see a "weaken" question, I automatically cross off the right answer, first. It's like clock work.

The whole test's one big mindf**k anyway. I don't think it has anything to do with law school acceptance - I think it's all one big sociology experiment!  ;D

Anyway, this is my first post and it was no help at all.

-F

Re: Why would you be good at LR but bad at LG????
« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2004, 08:42:16 AM »
since both are based on logic, how could someone (like me), be very strong on LRs but crappy on games?

Could it be -

poor attention to detail?

poor short term memory?

lack of spatial reasoning ability?

something else?

what do you guys think?

I don't know, but if you figure it out please tell me!!

nathanielmark

Re: Why would you be good at LR but bad at LG????
« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2004, 08:51:48 AM »
not useless at all and excellent point on the necessity for short term memory and attention to detail in RC passages. 


since both are based on logic, how could someone (like me), be very strong on LRs but crappy on games?

Could it be -

poor attention to detail?

poor short term memory?

lack of spatial reasoning ability?

something else?

what do you guys think?

I have the exact opposite problem. I can nail the LGs, but I hit a plateau on the LRs.

I don't think a poor short term memory or poor attention to detail are the culprits, because not having those things would affect LRs (which you say you do well on) and RCs (especially the long scientific passages - at least for me).

It could easily be spatial reasoning. You can draw diagrams until your face turns blue, but if you can't make use of that concept in your head, I imagine that would make LGs very difficult. It could very well be spatial reasoning, the whole left brain thing going on.

Or, you could just be psyching yourself out by telling yourself you can't get any better at Logical Games. I've noticed that a lot of the problems people I've been studying with have is that they build their own mental blocks. I know I did it to myself - no matter what, every time I see a "weaken" question, I automatically cross off the right answer, first. It's like clock work.

The whole test's one big mindf**k anyway. I don't think it has anything to do with law school acceptance - I think it's all one big sociology experiment!  ;D

Anyway, this is my first post and it was no help at all.

-F

M2

Re: Why would you be good at LR but bad at LG????
« Reply #4 on: June 05, 2004, 08:54:15 AM »
I really don't get it either....I only miss 1-3 on LR, RC...but then get killed in games every time.

What I also don't understand is that my law-advisor who is also a comp sci professor told me that all the other comp sci students he has had have had the exact opposite problem!!

Re: Why would you be good at LR but bad at LG????
« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2004, 09:14:23 AM »
I really don't get it either....I only miss 1-3 on LR, RC...but then get killed in games every time.

What I also don't understand is that my law-advisor who is also a comp sci professor told me that all the other comp sci students he has had have had the exact opposite problem!!

I'm starting to think that CS/math people do well on games theory is a myth.  I was a math major and a comp sci minor and I couldn't finish a game section if you had a gun to my head.  I also took relatively few reading-intensive courses (just intro. english and pysch [bioethics too, but I never did the reading assignments]).  Yet, I rock reading comp and arguments.  So go figure.

SecretAgentFrank

  • ***
  • 39
  • GPA: 3.36, MBA GPA: 4.0, LSATs: TBD
    • MSN Messenger - frank.espositojr@mac.com
    • AOL Instant Messenger - SecrtAgentFrank
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Why would you be good at LR but bad at LG????
« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2004, 09:46:05 AM »
I really don't get it either....I only miss 1-3 on LR, RC...but then get killed in games every time.

What I also don't understand is that my law-advisor who is also a comp sci professor told me that all the other comp sci students he has had have had the exact opposite problem!!

I'm starting to think that CS/math people do well on games theory is a myth.  I was a math major and a comp sci minor and I couldn't finish a game section if you had a gun to my head.  I also took relatively few reading-intensive courses (just intro. english and pysch [bioethics too, but I never did the reading assignments]).  Yet, I rock reading comp and arguments.  So go figure.

I was a CS minor and English major undergrad, and I do think the CS stuff actually helped a lot with the logic games. A lot of the stuff from my systems courses (that I can remember, it was a while ago!) were like the logic games - for example, diagramming the reads/writes from a database, or figuring out the sectors on a hard drive, and all that crud.

Having said that, the CS minor hasn't actually helped me in the real world, so go figure that one.  ;)

jacy85

  • *****
  • 6645
    • View Profile
Re: Why would you be good at LR but bad at LG????
« Reply #7 on: June 05, 2004, 09:55:31 AM »
I don't think asking why someone is good at one and bad at the other is even a valid question.  I mean, really, the two sections are totally unrelated.  Having your conditional reasoning/rules given to you in short little one line pieces of info is much, much, much differnt than reading a short 4 sentence passage of someone ranting about pollution and then having to discern from 5 different choices thier method of argument.  In fact, I find that for most of LR I never even use conditional reasoning.  Sure, there are always a handful of questions that are answered by understanding the sufficient and necessary conditions or picking out a mistaken negation or reversal.  But 5 questions is much different than 25 on LG.

And really, how many questions have you done in a games section that ask you to find the assumption in the rules?

Two different sections, two different skill sets.  Being good at one will NEVER mean that you should be good at the other.  If you happen to be great at both, god bless you on your way to a 170!  :)

nathanielmark

Re: Why would you be good at LR but bad at LG????
« Reply #8 on: June 05, 2004, 10:59:49 AM »
But surely it is a valid question.  You yourself acknowledge that they are both based on logic. so they are in fact related.  Obviously, many people, including those who do well on LRs, have a very difficult time with games.  Is this because these people are simply not good at games?  And if so, what particular aspects of games make them difficult for that individual?  If it is more then just not being good at games, then what underlying skill or ability is lacking in these individuals?


I don't think asking why someone is good at one and bad at the other is even a valid question.  I mean, really, the two sections are totally unrelated.  Having your conditional reasoning/rules given to you in short little one line pieces of info is much, much, much differnt than reading a short 4 sentence passage of someone ranting about pollution and then having to discern from 5 different choices thier method of argument.  In fact, I find that for most of LR I never even use conditional reasoning.  Sure, there are always a handful of questions that are answered by understanding the sufficient and necessary conditions or picking out a mistaken negation or reversal.  But 5 questions is much different than 25 on LG.

And really, how many questions have you done in a games section that ask you to find the assumption in the rules?

Two different sections, two different skill sets.  Being good at one will NEVER mean that you should be good at the other.  If you happen to be great at both, god bless you on your way to a 170!  :)

jacy85

  • *****
  • 6645
    • View Profile
Re: Why would you be good at LR but bad at LG????
« Reply #9 on: June 05, 2004, 01:37:47 PM »
I just can't see thinking about the sections in the same way.  When I'm doing games, I feel like I'm doing a math problem.  Not that it's related to math ability, but there is a right and a wrong answer.  It could be the visual aspect, but for me, I don't think that's it.  I thing that since there are definite strategies for mapping things out and making inferences for games, it's a teachable section.

LR, on the other hand, isn't really.  I suppose it's related to reading closely, but I think it's more than that.

I dunno...I guess it's not something I can really explain.  All I can say is that for me, it feels like I'm doing something compeletly different for LR and LG.  I think I utilize different skills, etc.  I suppose I should have described it as more of a personal experience in my original post, and not just a statement.