I thought I’d share my insights with all of you on the potential impact of the LSAC’s decision to REPLACE the LSAT’s current Analytical Reasoning (Logic Games) section with a SECOND section of Logical Reasoning (beginning in August 2024). In no particular order, here are some of my thoughts on the future change:
- If you are preparing for the LSAT and are exceptionally good at Logic Games (or think you can improve a lot in this section), consider taking the LSAT by June (or July, if offered) 2024.
- Unless you are absolutely terrible at Logic Games, I wouldn’t necessarily delay your LSAT plans if it is going to affect your law school applications. Your LSAT results may be a lot more similar than you think after the change, especially if you can improve your performance in Logic Games by the June 2024 LSAT.
- Reinforcing the preceding bullet point, remember that law schools focus on your highest LSAT score (although they will consider all your scores). So, if you take the LSAT before August 2024 and want/need to retake it, you can do so without too much impact on your future law school applications.
- There is a tremendous amount of information to learn in the Logical Reasoning section, including a wide variety of different question types and different logic strategies. Focusing more heavily on this section will be helpful especially since Logical Reasoning is less mechanical, and requires more insightful thinking than Logic Games.
- The LSAT had two sections of Logical Reasoning for decades (right up until the pandemic caused a shift in the sections of the exam), which reflects LSAC’s history of prioritizing the Logical Reasoning section. While the removal of Logic Games is a change, emphasizing Logical Reasoning on the LSAT is NOT something new. Instead, it is a return to something that had been done on the LSAT for decades.
- The change to the LSAT is a wise one, but not for the reason that brought about the change. The change came after LSAC was sued by two blind test students contending (accurately, in my opinion) that the Analytical Reasoning (Logic Games) section unfairly discriminated against blind people because it required visualizing the game in a way that blind people cannot do. I agree. But LSAC easily could have accommodated blind people without otherwise impacting the exam.
- LSAC’s decision to remove the Logic Games section for ALL test-takers was surprising and unnecessary, but a sensible decision nevertheless. Logical Reasoning tests the skills used in law school and the practice of law far more directly than Logic Games.
- In other words, lawyers routinely look to identify flaws in arguments, evaluate how to strengthen or weaken arguments, use parallel reasoning (analogies), etc. – all of these skills are directly tested in the Logical Reasoning section. In contrast, lawyers rarely need to do the precise tasks called for in the Logic Games section.