Official challenge to the 4th game in the scored LG section Forum

[citrustang]

so.. exactly what do you want LSAC to do?

a) throw out the entire game set? or
b) give us an awesome curve?

throwing out the entire game set is not fair for the people who struggled through it and got it right, even partially.
what LSAC should do is just accept the fact that they made a mistake on LG,
which should not have any ambiguity in wording, and give us a nice curve
(-14/-15 as it has happened in somewhere in PT20s).

All I can do is decide whether or not to send in a challenge. After that, all decisions must be left up to the discretion of the LSAC. I won't presume to tell them how to do their jobs.

[380yarddrives]

I think after the test was over some people forgot that the phrase used was "trained in the same _______", which is crystal clear. I didn't think the game was easy, but the phrasing wasn't ambiguous. Sorry.

Mods - if that's too specific, I can remove it!

I agree. I think the game was very tough, but it wasn't because of the ambiguity of that word.

[loptimist]

so.. exactly what do you want LSAC to do?

a) throw out the entire game set? or
b) give us an awesome curve?

throwing out the entire game set is not fair for the people who struggled through it and got it right, even partially.
what LSAC should do is just accept the fact that they made a mistake on LG,
which should not have any ambiguity in wording, and give us a nice curve
(-14/-15 as it has happened in somewhere in PT20s).

All I can do is decide whether or not to send in a challenge. After that, all decisions must be left up the discretion of the LSAC. I won't presume to tell them how to do their jobs.

i am asking your opinion - what you want, not what you can do.
you sounded like a politician there.

for a challenge, do i must send it using a fax machine?
i prefer to send it using an email.

[citrustang]

How can I inquire about a test question?

If, while taking the LSAT, you find what you believe to be an error or ambiguity in a test question that affects your response to the question, report it to the test supervisor as soon as you finish the test and write immediately to: Law School Admission Council, Test Development, 662 Penn Street, Box 40, Newtown, PA 18940-0040. You may also contact us by e-mail at LSATTS@LSAC.org. The LSAC document, Policies and Procedures Governing Challenges to Law School Admission Test Questions PDF Icon can be found here.

(http://www.lsac.org/AboutLSAC/faqs-and- ... #questions)

Yes, you can send an email. I am choosing to not disclose what I think should happen (to avoid needlessly inciting anxiety in others). I found what I "believe to be an error or ambiguity in a test question that affect[ed] [my] response to the question," so I am writing to the LSAC. If you had a similar experience, I would encourage you to write as well.

[loptimist]

I think after the test was over some people forgot that the phrase used was "trained in the same _______", which is crystal clear. I didn't think the game was easy, but the phrasing wasn't ambiguous. Sorry.

Mods - if that's too specific, I can remove it!

I agree. I think the game was very tough, but it wasn't because of the ambiguity of that word.

you guys are missing the point.
if you did not struggle with the wording then that is fine and good for you.

but it seems like there are a plenty of people who had trouble with the word in question,
and if the test caused trouble due not to its complexity but to its wording, it is a poorly written one.

plus, if the game was indeed very tough as you say, then there should've been absolutely no ambiguity for people who could
interpret the rule other way and fuck up the diagram and go panic and die heart-attack.

[apropos]

I received an interesting idea via PM. I will not disclose the sender's identity because it seems reasonable to assume he/she wanted to remain anonymous. Feel free to step forward if would like to do so.

2 a : an area or division of an activity, subject, or profession

According to the PM, even if you refuse to believe common usage permits the word in question to be used to describe different locations, common usage allows for it to be used to characterize subject matter. The word can just as easily be used to refer to different professions as it can be used to distinguish between topics or areas of interest.

I've been following this thread somewhat silently. I wasn't at all sure if I agreed with Citrus until this clarification. I didn't interpret it wrongly on the test. I didn't even consider the "wrong" interpretation. I think I should have. There was, in retrospect, no very legitimate reason to think that the word in question referred to the type of internship rather than the area they were covering. They were both certainly <insert word in question>s. <word in question> wouldnt rightly refer to a geographic location itself, but it certainly would refer to one if it was a subject matter, which is certainly the case. So I just want to give Citrus my encouragement. That is indeed a pretty egregious error on the part of LSAC. I did every practice LG from PT 1 to 59 and I didn't, at least knowingly, encounter such a massive ambiguity. I can see how it could be overlooked, however. Hopefully LSAC will do something (don't know what) to make this right-ish.

So with my full encouragement and support, good work Citrus. Let me know if there is anything anyone else can do to help present this argument.

[loptimist]

How can I inquire about a test question?

If, while taking the LSAT, you find what you believe to be an error or ambiguity in a test question that affects your response to the question, report it to the test supervisor as soon as you finish the test and write immediately to: Law School Admission Council, Test Development, 662 Penn Street, Box 40, Newtown, PA 18940-0040. You may also contact us by e-mail at LSATTS@LSAC.org. The LSAC document, Policies and Procedures Governing Challenges to Law School Admission Test Questions PDF Icon can be found here.

(http://www.lsac.org/AboutLSAC/faqs-and- ... #questions)

Yes, you can send an email. I am choosing to not disclose what I think should happen (to avoid needlessly inciting anxiety in others). I found what I "believe to be an error or ambiguity in a test question that affect[ed] [my] response to the question," so I am writing to the LSAC. If you had a similar experience, I would encourage you to write as well.

thanks,
though i managed to finish the game right before the time was called,
this LG section affected my overall performance for the subsequent sections.
hence i do not want the game to be thrown out completely but rather we all get a mercy curve.

simple and be happy everyone.

but who knows what LSAC will do, high chance they will just ignore us.

[CryingMonkey]

I have a lot of trouble with the argument that seems to be being made - namely, that because some number of people failed to understand the meaning of a word, the word was ambiguous. I'm not saying I interpreted the word correctly, because there was no interpretation needed; in the given context, there was only one correct meaning. Just because the word has another meaning that, if you stretch hard enough, could conceivably be used to describe another aspect of the game doesn't mean it was ambiguous; the context makes it absolutely clear. I have a lot of sympathy for people who made this mistake while under the gun; reading quickly, not paying attention to every word, mistakes happen. But it was a user error, not a faulty product. If citrus's argument is that LSAC should construct its games such that reading comprehension doesn't come into play, that's fine. But honestly, this test is supposed to be determining our suitability for admission to law school. The ability to correct interpret words based on their context is a necessary one for a lawyer. If you went before a judge with the argument that you misinterpreted a word because it had an alternate definition, even though the context made it clear what usage of the word was intended, I'd hope you wouldn't get very far.

"Your Honor, my client does not understand why he should have to pay for unenrolled pieces of legislation! The letter from the bank saying he had to pay his bills was clearly ambiguous!"

"Your Honor, when my client was told that he was being taxed, he thought that meant he was being worked hard, not having a levy placed upon him for the support of government!"

"Your Honor, please don't hold my client in contempt. When he was told he was to present himself to the court, he naturally thought he should show up wearing only wrapping paper and a bow!"

These arguments wouldn't fly, but I don't see that they are materially different. Particularly in the English language, words can have many meanings that can only be determined by context. The ability to do so is a skill that the LSAT should test, on any section.

(I'm going to feel silly when I get my score back and I bombed this section, but I'll acknowledge my mistake. And I don't mean that in the sense of "express appreciation or gratitude.")

[Mike12188]

I have no idea what word or phrase you guys are taking about, I hope that means I interpreted it correctly. I mean it was a hard game but I don't remember anything being unclear. If anyone could PM me and help me understand it would be greatly appreciated.

[loptimist]

I have a lot of trouble with the argument that seems to be being made - namely, that because some number of people failed to understand the meaning of a word, the word was ambiguous. I'm not saying I interpreted the word correctly, because there was no interpretation needed; in the given context, there was only one correct meaning. Just because the word has another meaning that, if you stretch hard enough, could conceivably be used to describe another aspect of the game doesn't mean it was ambiguous; the context makes it absolutely clear. I have a lot of sympathy for people who made this mistake while under the gun; reading quickly, not paying attention to every word, mistakes happen. But it was a user error, not a faulty product. If citrus's argument is that LSAC should construct its games such that reading comprehension doesn't come into play, that's fine. But honestly, this test is supposed to be determining our suitability for admission to law school. The ability to correct interpret words based on their context is a necessary one for a lawyer. If you went before a judge with the argument that you misinterpreted a word because it had an alternate definition, even though the context made it clear what usage of the word was intended, I'd hope you wouldn't get very far.

"Your Honor, my client does not understand why he should have to pay for unenrolled pieces of legislation! The letter from the bank saying he had to pay his bills was clearly ambiguous!"

"Your Honor, when my client was told that he was being taxed, he thought that meant he was being worked hard, not having a levy placed upon him for the support of government!"

"Your Honor, please don't hold my client in contempt. When he was told he was to present himself to the court, he naturally thought he should show up wearing only wrapping paper and a bow!"

These arguments wouldn't fly, but I don't see that they are materially different. Particularly in the English language, words can have many meanings that can only be determined by context. The ability to do so is a skill that the LSAT should test, on any section.

(I'm going to feel silly when I get my score back and I bombed this section, but I'll acknowledge my mistake. And I don't mean that in the sense of "express appreciation or gratitude.")

No, the word in question could mean both a subject matter and a profession.
It is ambiguous because both are legitimate interpretations; the rules and the context did not show strong connection.

What you are putting in quotes are illegitimate interpretations.

The two are different.

[williammmc]

The ability to correctly interpret words based on their context is a necessary one for a lawyer.

You seem to be saying that the context was also clear? When there are more than one categories to which a certain word may be applied, and in each category that word fits equally well, there is a problem.

If you think everyone should be able to determine usage in context, I am with you 100% percent.

But if you think everyone should be able to see usage that can be applied to two contexts, and make a decision about that context without any prompting to do so (i.e. lack of instructive clues), then you are making a mistake.

Please don't assume that someone has to be able to make unwarranted assumptions to be a successful lawyer. That is simply absurd.

[apropos]

I think after the test was over some people forgot that the phrase used was "trained in the same _______", which is crystal clear. I didn't think the game was easy, but the phrasing wasn't ambiguous. Sorry.

Mods - if that's too specific, I can remove it!

I agree. I think the game was very tough, but it wasn't because of the ambiguity of that word.

This did seem clear to me at the time. Or at least I assumed the right thing during the test. But I don't think the context makes it perfectly clear at all. Training could be in either the subject covered or the type of internship taken..

[bk1]

It was not ambiguous, trust me. Try to use it in a sentence referring to a geographic region. It will sound wrong, because it is wrong.

[balzern]

I know this is a long shot but hopefully you can influence the curve even a little bit. I know that is unlikely, but even so, it couldn't hurt to try! Good luck dude!

[Knock]

I know this is a long shot but hopefully you can influence the curve even a little bit. I know that is unlikely, but even so, it couldn't hurt to try! Good luck dude!

Me too. Anything that benefits me I am for .

[yoiav]

does anybody remember the exact wording of those clues, aside the offending word? there is no point arguing if it was ambiguous without the context

[apropos]

It was not ambiguous, trust me. Try to use it in a sentence referring to a geographic region. It will sound wrong, because it is wrong.

.. unless the geographical region is a subject of study or something one is reporting on or something one works with..

Say, a scholar studying Iran. Or a reporter covering North Korea.

[Dany]

does anybody remember the exact wording of those clues, aside the offending word? there is no point arguing if it was ambiguous without the context

PM'd

[yoiav]

does anybody remember the exact wording of those clues, aside the offending word? there is no point arguing if it was ambiguous without the context

PM'd

pm'd? i'm new to this website

[bk1]

It was not ambiguous, trust me. Try to use it in a sentence referring to a geographic region. It will sound wrong, because it is wrong.

.. unless the geographical region is a subject of study or something one is reporting on or something one works with..

Say, a scholar studying Iran. Or a reporter covering North Korea.

Wrong. Use the word from the test. It will not fit. I am not saying that a geographical region cannot be the subject of study, I am saying that if it is it still cannot be used in conjunction with the "ambiguous" word.

[Dany]

does anybody remember the exact wording of those clues, aside the offending word? there is no point arguing if it was ambiguous without the context

PM'd

pm'd? i'm new to this website

Sent you a private message; we're not allowed to post question specifics on the boards.

[d34d9823]

does anybody remember the exact wording of those clues, aside the offending word? there is no point arguing if it was ambiguous without the context

PM'd

pm'd? i'm new to this website

Look at the top left corner and click on "1 new message"

[apropos]

It was not ambiguous, trust me. Try to use it in a sentence referring to a geographic region. It will sound wrong, because it is wrong.

.. unless the geographical region is a subject of study or something one is reporting on or something one works with..

Say, a scholar studying Iran. Or a reporter covering North Korea.

Wrong. Use the word from the test. It will not fit. I am not saying that a geographical region cannot be the subject of study, I am saying that if it is it still cannot be used in conjunction with the "ambiguous" word.

Done. It fits.
It definitely does not fit as naturally, and definitely seems like a somewhat odd way to read it immediately, which is why I hadnt even considered this problem until I read this thread. If somewhat someone whispered this ambiguity in my ear while I was taking the test, I wouldve second-guessed myself.

[bk1]

Done. It fits.
It definitely does not fit as naturally, and definitely seems like a somewhat odd way to read it immediately, which is why I hadnt even considered this problem until I read this thread. If somewhat somehow whispered this ambiguity in my ear while I was taking the test, I wouldve second-guessed myself.

It does not fit naturally at all and is incredibly odd.

I'm not saying that it isn't grammatically correct when used this way (it is). I'm saying that it is not something any native English speaker would ever say, thus there is no reason for anyone to ever read the test as if it means it that way.

[d34d9823]

Done. It fits.
It definitely does not fit as naturally, and definitely seems like a somewhat odd way to read it immediately, which is why I hadnt even considered this problem until I read this thread. If somewhat somehow whispered this ambiguity in my ear while I was taking the test, I wouldve second-guessed myself.

It does not fit naturally at all and is incredibly odd.

I'm not saying that it isn't grammatically correct when used this way (it is). I'm saying that it is not something any native English speaker would ever say, thus there is no reason for anyone to ever read the test as if it means it that way.

I think test day nerves are a good explanation. The problem is that LSAC will not think so. *Fingers crossed for a slight bump in the equating scale*