General LSAT LG Question- How They Appear on Exam

[barryhamilton]

I have been putting a lot of time in on the Logic games section over the last month, especially the last week. I also took the weekend Powerscore Course. In the course there was not much coverage on linear/grouping combination games. Do this mean that the odds of having one of these types of games is small. During the course, I was told that 95% of games will either be linear or grouping. What could the other 5% of games consist of? Also, I was just scanning the mapping, pattern and circular linear games and was wondering if I need to put in a decent amount of time on these games or should I not waste my time on these?

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Barry,

Thanks for the message, and thanks also for taking a course with us. We really appreciate it!

The question you ask is a good one. The vast majority of Logic Games feature Linear or Grouping setups, and there are numerous tests that feature only those game types. And, when you keep in mind that Pattern and Circular games are actually subtypes of Linear games, the number looks even higher than it does initially.

Over in our Free LSAT Help there is an article about game type frequencey, at http://www.powerscore.com/lsat/help/game_types.cfm. But, even with that in hand, you can never really know what LSAC will do on a given test (this is the danger of statistics--any one individual event could deviate from the norm).

So, going back to your question, do you need to spend a lot of time on those other types? No, not really. But, what I would do is become conversant with the basics of each so you can recognize what to do in the unlikely event that one appears on your exam. Circular games, for example, aren't that tough to understand, and you could probably get a pretty well-developed sense of what to look for and how to attack those games in under an hour of studying. The bulk of your time should still be spent on the Linear and Grouping game types, because you know you will see those.

Please let me know if that halps. Thanks!