|
Basic Game
Types and Frequency of Appearance
While you prepare
for the Logic Games section of the LSAT, you should be aware of
the game types that appear most frequently on the exam. In our LSAT
preparation courses and Logic Games publications we delineate
the advanced and comprehensive game classification system used by
PowerScore to attack the Logic Games section of the LSAT*. Below,
we use some of the most basic classification levels of that system
to provide an informative analysis of the game types that have appeared
on all LSATs since June 1991.
Basic
Game Types and Frequency of Appearance: 1991 to the Present
| Game
Type |
#
of Games |
Frequency
Percentage |
| Linear
(Basic and Advanced) |
100 |
45.45% |
| Grouping |
77 |
35.00% |
| Grouping/Linear
Combination |
11 |
5.00% |
| Pattern |
7 |
3.18% |
| Pure
Sequencing |
13 |
5.91% |
| Mapping |
6 |
2.73% |
| Circular
Linearity |
3 |
1.36% |
|
A brief analysis
of the table reveals that Linear and Grouping games dominate the
percentages, and fully 85% of games on past tests were Grouping,
Linear, or Grouping/Linear Combination games (almost 90% if you
consider that Pattern games are also Linear in nature). Other game
types appeared relatively infrequently. A student with limited preparation
time would obviously be well-served to tilt their preparation towards
the Linear and Grouping games as these types appear on every LSAT.
Within certain
game types, further analysis is helpful. Linear games can be divided
into two types—Basic and Advanced—and as you might expect, Advanced
Linear games appear somewhat more frequently than Basic Linear games:
| Linear
Game Type |
#
of Games |
Percentage
of
Linear Games |
| Basic
Linear |
45 |
45.00% |
| Advanced
Linear |
55 |
55.00% |
|
For students
tracking the basic complexity of Linear games, among both Basic
and Advanced Linear games, Balanced games appear more frequently
than Unbalanced games:
| Linear
Game Subclassification Type |
#
of Games* |
Percentage
of
Linear Games |
| Balanced |
67 |
67.00% |
| Unbalanced |
32 |
32.00% |
| *
One game appeared as an Undefined Linear Game, and was
therefore neither Balanced nor Unbalanced. |
|
Thus, a test
taker encountering a Linear game has a two in three chance of seeing
a Balanced game.
BACK
TO THE TOP
Grouping games,
often considered the most challenging game type, can be divided
into several subcategories:
| Grouping
Game Subclassification Type |
#
of Games |
Percentage
of
Grouping Games |
| Defined |
53 |
68.83% |
| Partially
Defined |
15 |
19.48% |
| Undefined |
8 |
10.39% |
|
One sub-type—Defined
games—appears far more frequently that the other sub-types. This
weighting is beneficial for test takers as Defined games are generally
easier than Undefined or Partially Defined games.
Some of the
more advanced game concepts and techniques specifically addressed
in the PowerScore full-length course also appear quite frequently:
| Concept/Technique
Type |
#
of Games |
Percentage
of All Games |
| Identify
the Templates |
34 |
15.45% |
| Identify
the Possibilities |
17 |
7.73% |
| Numerical
Distribution |
37 |
16.82% |
|
Almost 25% of
games require an advanced approach such as Identify the Templates
or Identify the Possibilities, and well over 15% of games feature
a challenging element such as a Numerical Distribution. These high
rates of appearance put an unprepared test taker at a severe disadvantage.
Students often
ask how the LSAT has changed over the years. Consider the difference
in the percentages when only the games from 2000 to the present
are considered:
Basic
Game Types and Frequency of Appearance: 2000 to the Present
| Game
Type |
#
of Games |
Frequency
Percentage,
2000-Present |
Frequency
Percentage,
1991-Present |
| Linear
(Basic and Advanced) |
42 |
47.77% |
45.45% |
| Grouping |
33 |
37.50% |
35.00% |
| Grouping/Linear
Combination |
5 |
5.68% |
5.00% |
| Pure
Sequencing |
6 |
6.82% |
3.18% |
| Circular
Linearity |
1 |
1.14% |
5.91% |
| Mapping |
0 |
0.00% |
2.73% |
| Pattern |
0 |
0.00% |
1.36% |
|
Amazingly, the
focus on Linear and Grouping games has become even greater. What
about the use of more advanced features in games? The table below
reveals that on recent tests the makers of the LSAT have begun to
attack the students with ever more challenging games:
| Concept/Technique
Type |
#
of Games |
Percentage
of
All Games,
2000-Present |
Percentage
of
All Games,
1991-Present |
| Identify
the Templates |
18 |
20.45% |
15.45% |
| Identify
the Possibilities |
3 |
3.41% |
7.73% |
| Numerical
Distribution |
20 |
22.73% |
16.82% |
|
Over 20% of
all games since 2000 have required an advanced “Numerical Distribution”
approach, a significant increase from previous years.
The discussion
above shows clearly that the LSAT is not a collection of random
ideas. The protocols of the test dictate that certain concepts must
be tested with frequency, and as a test taker, arming yourself with
the most advanced knowledge is crucial. A solid course of preparation
is necessary for performing well, and your preparation must have
focus and direction. Students who are unprepared for the most frequently
appearing games and concepts are at a serious disadvantage when
taking the LSAT.
* The Logic
Games classification system used by PowerScore helps students specifically
identify the dominant features of each game. By understanding how
each game presents problems, students can then better attack that
game. The discussion presented above uses only a few, very basic
classification terms. For a detailed discussion of the entire Unified
Games Theory classification system, please refer to a PowerScore LSAT Course textbook or the Logic
Games Bible.
BACK
TO THE TOP
|