If Student A is taking the Law School Admission Test next month, and A is sitting behind B but not in the same row as C, who among them is facing the notorious “logic game” questions for the last time? Answer: All of the above.
From June 5-8, the LSAT will feature its logic games section for the final time. This challenging component, a fixture since 1982, will soon be history, much to the relief of many aspiring lawyers. These logic puzzles, which constitute a third of the test, have long been a dreaded obstacle.
The decision to remove logic games follows a 2019 settlement between the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) and two blind LSAT takers. They argued that the analytical reasoning section violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, as they couldn’t draw the diagrams crucial for these questions. Initially, LSAC considered modifying the section but ultimately decided on its complete removal, surprising many.
Despite the change, test prep experts caution that the LSAT won’t necessarily become easier. Glen Stohr, an LSAT instructor with Kaplan, notes that while logic games are tough for many, they also offer a quick route to score improvements once students grasp their mechanics. Dave Killoran, CEO of LSAT prep company PowerScore, shares that this uncertainty has spurred a rush to take the final test with logic games, as some worry about the new format.
Come August, the LSAT will comprise two sections of logical reasoning and one section of reading comprehension, with an experimental section that won’t affect scores. LSAC assures that the new format will maintain scoring consistency and effectiveness in predicting first-year law school performance, based on a study of over 218,000 exams.
For some, like Zachary Stathakos, the change is welcome. Stathakos, who struggled with the logic games, delayed his law school application to take the revised LSAT in August. He hopes the new format will boost his scores, which have already improved significantly in practice tests.
Reactions to the end of logic games are mixed. Roberta Kaplan, a prominent attorney, recalls her experiences with these puzzles with a sense of dread, while former acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal criticizes them as overly coachable and inequitable. However, others, such as plaintiffs’ attorney Jay Edelson, fondly remember the challenges they presented.
As the LSAT bids goodbye to logic games, the debate over their impact and necessity continues, leaving behind a legacy of both frustration and fond memories.
