In October 2023, the Law School Admission Council announced they would be removing the analytical reasoning, or “logic games,” section of the Law School Admission Test and replacing it with an additional logical reasoning section starting in August 2024. One admission cycle later, the new LSAT is sparking conversations at the University of Michigan — a top 10 Law School — about accessibility in the application process.
The change was the result of a 2017 lawsuit against LSAC brought by Michigan resident Angelo Binno claiming the analytical reasoning section was disadvantageous for visually impaired test-takers. In an email to The Michigan Daily, Sarah Zearfoss, senior assistant dean for admissions and financial aid at Michigan Law School, described Binno’s case and wrote that the analytical reasoning section was difficult to complete without a visual aide.
“If you ever read the first Harry Potter book, you may remember the part where Hermione solves a tricky riddle about potions—that’s the kind of question that the analytical reasoning section, known to many as ‘logic games,’ specialized in,” Zearfoss wrote. “Test-takers typically approached the AR questions by diagramming. LSAC was sued by a blind test-taker who said that his lack of sightedness meant he couldn’t diagram, and that he and any other blind test-takers were at a fundamental disadvantage.”
At the beginning of the analytical reasoning section, the LSAT stated it may be helpful for applicants to draw a diagram. In an interview with The Daily, pre-law advisor Heather Dunbar said these optional, self-drawn diagrams are a vital tool for success.
“In theory, (test-takers) could answer the question in their head,” Dunbar said. “In practice, I have never met somebody who could answer those questions without drawing something out and do it effectively — a lot of questions had spatial distinctions within them.”
In addition to unfairness for test-takers with visual impairments, Zearfoss wrote the analytical reasoning section was biased towards affluent students due to its coachable nature.
“As a practical matter, the AR section was also the most coachable, enabling people who could pay for high-priced test prep to increase their scores, sometimes dramatically,” Zearfoss wrote. “So removing that section arguably levels the playing field for those test-takers who can’t afford extensive test prep.”
Dunbar said removing the analytical reasoning section has had little impact on advising practices besides warning law school applicants about old materials, and actually presents some study benefits for students studying for the LSAT.
“We do tell students that if they’re using books or older materials to study from, and they come across the logical games section, just move on, like don’t go there and let them know that doesn’t exist anymore,” Dunbar said. “But other than that, (there’s) not really a change in approach. I would say the biggest change is that they can focus more on improving the other two sections.”
Following the August 2024 format change, there has been a general increase in LSAT scores. In alignment with an overall upwards trend in scores for the past four years, LSAC reports a 42.2% increase in applicants applying to law school with LSAT scores ranging from 175 to 180, the highest possible score, in 2025 compared to 2024.
In an interview with The Daily, LSA rising senior Rohan Vyas, founder and former president of Michigan Business Law, said he had some concern about this trend in scores as someone interested in applying to law school.
“When they removed the analytical reasoning, I think you did see some LSAT score inflation after that,” Vyas said. “I’m not super opinionated on it — I think, as someone who’s shooting for the highest score possible, seeing other people get higher scores is like, ‘Hooray for them,’ but at the same time the inflation isn’t necessarily the best thing.”
Zearfoss wrote that while some LSAT alternatives like the GRE and JD-Next are gaining popularity for law school admissions, she believes the LSAT will remain a prominent part of applications in the future.
“There are no big changes on the horizon for the LSAT at this point, but there are always new competitor products to evaluate,” Zearfoss wrote. “In the past, that was the GRE, and presently, there’s something called JD-Next. My analysis of the available data has only reaffirmed my view that the LSAT is the best standardized test tool available for law school admissions officers.”
Daily Staff Reporter Aanya Panyadahundi can be contacted at aanyatp@umich.edu.
