Posted by Orin Kerr:
Should the LSAT Have A "Logic Games" Section?:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_12_23-2007_12_29.shtml#1198455392
The [1]Law School Admission Test (LSAT) is a major factor in law
school admissions at every law school. The test itself features three
different types of questions, more or less unchanged since 1982:
logical reasoning, reading comprehension, and analytical reasoning.
[2]Wikipedia offers this summary of the three types of questions:
Logical Reasoning
The test contains two logical reasoning sections, commonly known as
"arguments" or "LR". Each question begins with a paragraph which
presents either an argument or a short set of facts. The paragraph
is followed by a prompt asking the examinee to find the argument's
assumption, an alternate conclusion, logical omissions or errors in
the argument, to choose another argument with parallel reasoning,
or to identify a statement that would either weaken or strengthen
the argument.
Reading Comprehension
The test contains one reading comprehension ("RC") section. . . .
The questions ask the examinee to determine the author's main idea,
find information in the passage, draw inferences from the text, and
describe the structure of the passage.
Analytical Reasoning
The test has one analytical reasoning section, informally known as
the "logic games" section. . . . The material generally involves
grouping, matching, and ordering of elements. The examinee is
presented with a setup ("there are five people who might attend
this afternoon's meeting") and partial set of rules that govern the
situation (e.g. "if Amy is present, then Bob is not present; if
Cathy is present, then Dan is present..."), and is then asked to
deduce conclusions from the statements (e.g. "What is the maximum
number of people who could be present?"). Individual questions
often add rules and occasionally modify existing rules, requiring
the examinee to reorganize information quickly.
To see these various types of questions "in action," check out a
sample LSAT exam [3]here.
It's easy to see how the first two types of questions measure
lawyerly potential. The logical reasoning section tests the
applicant's ability to understand the nature, scope, and weaknesses of
various arguments. Reading comprehension tests the applicant's ability
to understand and interpret written text. Both skills are directly
relevant to legal reasoning; they largely mirror the kinds of mental
moves that people make when making legal arguments.
On the other hand, I confess I don't understand why the LSAT has a
"games" section (aka "analytical reasoning"). This section tests an
ability to understand relationships among a handful of variables and
to see the different ways that different combinations of those
variables can fit different criteria. The skill set seems to be
keeping a lot of variables in mind and working with how a change in
the boundaries of a problem changes how the different pieces can
relate to each other. That is an important skill set in many
professions, to be sure; it's something that I did all the time when I
was in engineering graduate school. But I wonder, how important is
that skill to either the study or the practice of law? What kinds of
legal tasks rely heavily on that skill?
The Law School Admission Council's [4]report on the history of
different LSAT questions explains that the purpose of these questions
is "to understand the structure of a relationship," and claims that
they "represent the kind of detailed analyses necessary in solving
legal problems."(p.8) But I don't see why. (The report cites a 1993
study, but I couldn't find it online.) It's not clear to me that this
particular kind of reasoning is directly relevant to either the study
or practice of law.
One possibility is that perhaps the LSAT people think logic games
questions are like "issue spotters," which themselves try to mimic
providing advice to a client who brings you a specific set of facts
and wants to know how the law might apply. The legal skill here is
having a deep understanding of what a legal test means so that you can
quickly see the legal terrain raised by the new facts. But that seems
really different from the skills evaluated by the logic games
questions. The logic games sections always have trivially easy
"doctrines." For example, you might have three rows of chairs, and a
"doctrine" will be something like "Sam must sit in the same row as
Betty." The skill in answering the question has little to do with
having a deep understanding of the rule; it's not like they're testing
ambiguity in the meaning of the word "sit." Feels like a pretty
different part of the brain to me.
Anyway, I'm curious if others agree or disagree. I look forward to
your comments.
References
1. http://www.lsac.org/LSAC.asp?url=lsac/about-the-lsat.asp
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSAT
3. http://lsac.org/pdfs/test.pdf
4.
http://www.lsacnet.org/Research/Compendium-of-LSAT-and-LSAC-Sponsored-Item-Types.pdf
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
