• Contact Us
  • Student Login
  • My Cart

LSAT and Law School Admissions Blog

You are here: Home / Studying / Your Busted Bracket and the LSAT

March 31, 2016

Your Busted Bracket and the LSAT

Your Busted Bracket and the LSAT

If you’re like nearly everyone who submitted picks for the NCAA men’s basketball tournament this year, chances are exceptionally good that your bracket at this point is a mess. “Busted,” to use the parlance of those who take these things somewhat seriously. I say that because attempting to predict winners and losers over the span of 67 match ups (give or take) is bound to meet some difficulties. This year’s games seem especially determined to foil even the most informed among us. “March Madness” has truly lived up to its name, and, as many experts have noted, quite possibly more so this year than any other in recent memory.

Michigan State, an overall #2 seed and a favorite among many to win it all, was knocked out in their first game. And by a #15 seed no less? Texas A&M rallies from a 12-point deficit with 44 seconds to play and wins in overtime against Northern Iowa?  Even twelfth-seed Yale, home to the country’s best law school (if you believe the hype), scored a first round upset over #5 Baylor. Madness, indeed.

Probable Outcomes Are Only Probable

And the reason why, well, at least a reason why, is that merely probable outcomes don’t always hold true. That is, the rank of a team doesn’t equate to a predictable outcome. This is particularly the case when you observe it long-term. If poor Michigan State plays Middle Tennessee, the team that ousted them in round 1, ten times in a row, odds are very good that MSU wins the majority of those games, and probably goes something like 7-8 of 10. So they’re a safe choice, even if they’re not a guarantee. Successful bracket-ologists account for this notion. Take the favorite seed most of the time, but allow for some outliers, some upsets, to occur, as well.

Two similarities have already been insightfully addressed by my colleague Dave Killoran.

  1. Underdogs can win, particularly when they believe there’s a chance, so if you’re feeling outmatched remember that your LSAT preparation has to be underpinned by an unwavering self-belief.
  2. When you encounter difficulty, don’t get let adversity faze you, instead use it to your advantage

I have a 16th seed’s chance of improving on his advice, so I strongly encourage you to just read it for yourself. To that, let me add a third.

The LSAT is Largely Predictable… to an Extent

The test has to be consistent. “Standardized” means that there’s only so much variability allowed if the exam is going to maintain a degree of reliability. But, the test makers are entitled to unforeseen “upsets” in what they choose to present. Simply put, you can know with confidence what you’re likely to face, but you must also allow for the unlikely to crop up. Take the last three released LSATs’ Logic Games sections as a for-instance:

  • The June 2015 test features a Linear/Grouping game, a Grouping game, a Sequencing game, and a Basic Linear game. Standard stuff, although the third game, pure Sequencing, stands out as the most unusual. The absence of Advanced Linear is notable as well.
  • October 2015 also offers few surprises, with a Basic Linear game, a Grouping game, an Advanced Linear game, and a concluding Grouping game. This is arguably the most typical collection of games one could face.

So far we’ve got 4 seeds topping 13 seeds, as expected. But here comes Hawaii.

  • December 2015 starts predictably enough, with a Basic Linear game followed by a Linear/Grouping game. But game #3 was a shocker: a Pattern game that stopped people in their tracks. Granted, the upset march was short-lived, as the section concluded with a common Grouping game, but the damage to the unprepared had been done. A single fluke threw many people’s whole test into irremediable chaos. It effectively busted their bracket.

Allow Room for Surprises

So, what’s the moral of this comparison? Treat the LSAT like it’s a sensible selection of game-day picks. You can expect most of what’s to come, but occasionally you have to allow for a surprise. Don’t just approach the possibility with an open mind,  actively train for the eventuality! Prioritize your preparation around what’s most likely, whether in LR or in Games. But don’t ignore the long-shot! Studying only the most common, or most typical, leaves you vulnerable to an upset, and success depends on avoiding that at all costs.

Test takers who are genuinely capable of conquering anything they encounter on test day aren’t just in tune in the familiar. They’re aware of all potential outcomes and have what it takes to succeed in the face of even the most unlikely of circumstances. They’ve built an unbustable bracket. The only sure-fire way to insulate yourself against the unthinkable is immerse yourself in a course of study so comprehensive, that you leave nothing to chance. Our courses offer just that! But regardless of how you choose to study never forget: with a test this important, as well as this proneness to fleeting fits of unpredictability, preparedness is essential.

FacebookTweetPinEmail

Posted by Jon Denning / Studying / LSAT Prep, Mentality Leave a Comment

Jon Denning
March 31, 2016 at 9:58pm

A student on our Forum asked me a two-part question in response to this blog post, and for future readers I thought I’d share it here:

1. In regards to LG, what is the test makers strategy on when to use them? I have noticed rare games have reappeared similarly to the early 90’s but with one key difference : Now it seems like LSAC is using them every now and then to keep test takers on their toes, but from about PT 1-18 there was a rare game on almost every exam so it was a near certainty you would see them….and do you think the test makers can only likely put 2 rare games at most on an exam to keep the standardization of the exam? (If you put 4 rare exams, you would likely have to make the other sections easier).

2. As far as the rest of the exam is concerned, how can rare “surprise” elements show up in LR or RC?….could there be two comparative reading passages or none at all. The only rare surprise I can think of for LR is going back to where they have two questions for one stem.

And my reply:

Thanks for the question, and for taking the time to read today’s blog!

Part of this reply is going to depend on how we classify “rarity,” so let me begin by trying to clarify what I mean when I describe something as unusual. It’s a sliding scale, of course–however much I may wish it there’s no objective delineation between “rare” and “common”–but in my mind anything that appears only a handful of times per year in LR, or perhaps once every few years in LG, can be suitably thought of as infrequent and surprising.

So to your first question there are two considerations: what are the test makers doing that should qualify as rare, and why are they doing it? For the early years of the modern LSAT there weren’t enough candidates for anything to count as common or uncommon (rarity means breaking from tradition, and traditions take time), so I don’t count those tests much in this discussion. Instead, let’s consider the past several years and the unique moments they’ve contained.

If you follow the blog you’ve perhaps caught wind of a few outlier game instances, like the Pattern games in both June 2014 and December 2015, as well as a Circular game (reportedly) in February 2014. Those two types are extremely uncommon, and reappeared without warning, much to the annoyance of test takers.

So that’s the kind of outlier event I’m referring to. Ditto were we to see a Mapping game, or Profile Charting, or even another Pattern or Circular (although the surprise factor should be lessened by their recent reemergence).

Why do the test makers use those types on occasion? I think you’ve actually answered that: to keep people on their toes! LSAC knows that test takers these days tend to be extremely well-informed about the exam, so the LSAT becoming too consistent, or too predictable, is a constant worry. They shrug off that predictability in the only allowable way, which is to very occasionally include something that most people wouldn’t expect, but that’s still permissible under the constraints of test fairness.

And that idea of “fairness” is important. There’s only so much fringe content they can include before the test itself becomes unrepresentative, which is why I think it’s safe to say you won’t see an LG section with two Patterns and a Mapping. One example of rarity? Fine. Fair. Two or three? That test is suspect. So I’m pleased to report that there is in fact a ceiling for strange.

Which leads me to your second question, and it’s a good one as well. Obviously an unexpected game causes quite a fuss, in part because that section tends to be the most challenging for people, and in part because one game in four stands out so much more than one LR question in 25 (or 50). So oddball games get a lot of attention, and deservedly so.

But that’s not to suggest that LR doesn’t permit surprising variability as well, both in terms of what people should rightly anticipate, and in terms of some misconceptions most people hold. Take a question type like Evaluate the Argument (and if you don’t know what that is it doesn’t matter here; you’ll learn of it soon enough if you’re in a class with us): Evaluate questions are the single least common type on the test historically, often with years passing between appearances. And yet in the past few years nearly every LSAT has had at least one, and sometimes even two. So that recent emphasis caught a lot of people off guard, myself included if I’m being honest. I know how to solve Evaluate questions so it was of no personal consequence, but considering how little attention the average person out there pays to that q-type I know multiple Evaluate problems was a legitimate issue.

The same could be said with a heightened emphasis on Cannot be True, or Formal Logic, or the re-inclusion of “double question stimuli” (as you mention; interestingly they used to present that question construct all the time, then phased it out entirely, but lately we’ve been hearing steady reports that experimental sections are featuring it again, signaling its probable appearance on an exam in the near future). Likewise, a section of LR that has an unusual composition in terms of question frequency, with, say, 6 Justify and only 1 Flaw, or 7 Weaken but no Must be True. Those are extreme cases (and hypothetical; neither has ever happened I don’t think), but they’d fit the definition of rarity.

Secondly, and as I alluded to above with LR, there’s the issue of misconception. For instance, did you know that Strengthen questions appear, on average, twice as often as Weaken? Most people don’t, and thus devote as much, if not more, time to studying Weaken than Strengthen, despite Strengthen being literally twice as important points-wise. So even with an entirely typical LSAT people often are caught off guard due to their own misunderstandings about what to expect.

Finally, you’ll note that I didn’t mention RC in my blog. The reason why is that that sections seems to be by far the most consistent of all: you’ll always have four passages, only one will be comparative reading, science/law/humanities are going to feature, etc. To change any of that the test makers would have to announce it well ahead of time, as they did with the introduction of comparative reading in June 2007. Failing that announcement you can rest easy on RC.

My point in all of this is that a great test taker is going to be ready for anything, while still setting expectations according to what’s most likely. Know all the conceptual types, but also know how to prioritize your time and energy so that the most common elements get the most attention.

I hope that helps!

About Jon Denning

Jon Denning is PowerScore's Vice President and oversees product creation and instructor training for all of the exam services PowerScore offers. He is also a Senior Instructor with 99th percentile scores on the LSAT, GMAT, GRE, SAT, and ACT.

Jon is widely regarded as one of the world's foremost authorities on LSAT preparation, and for the past decade has assisted thousands of students in the law school admissions process. He has also created/co-created a number of PowerScore’s LSAT courses and publications, including the Reading Comprehension Bible, the In Person, Live Online, and On Demand LSAT Courses, the Advanced Logic Games Course, the Advanced Logical Reasoning Course, and a number of books in PowerScore’s popular LSAT Deconstructed Series.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Attend a PowerScore Webinar!

Popular Posts

  • Podcast Episode 168: The 2025 US News Law School Rankings
  • Podcast Episode 167: April 2025 LSAT Recap
  • Podcast Episode 166: LSAT Faceoff: Dave and Jon Debate Five Common Test Concerns
  • Podcast Episode 165: February 2025 LSAT Recap
  • Podcast Episode 164: State of the LSAT Union: 2024 Recap and 2025 Preview

Categories

  • Pinterest
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
  • Twitter
Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!