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

[mges]

Bottom line - Personal attacks are unnecessary. Get over yourself. Thanks!

Also, I don't believe LSAC will change - but it isn't completely out of the question to write an inquiry either. This most likely will be reflected in the curve.

[Marionberry]

Fair enough. Similarly, if you make dickish statements, I have every right to call you a dick.

[suspicious android]

At least you have a mature outlook on the situation. Plenty of people in here sound whiny because they got the game wrong. In my opinion, misunderstanding that word was a foolish mistake, not a fault on the part of LSAC. If you make foolish mistakes, I have every right to call you a fool. I don't think I ever explicitly called someone stupid though.

You have a "right" to call them a fool even if they aren't being one. But it's a prickish thing to do. So I suppose that gives me the right to call you a prick, but I'd prefer to assume that you're just acting like one because you're stressed about the LSAT.

[d34d9823]

At least you have a mature outlook on the situation. Plenty of people in here sound whiny because they got the game wrong. In my opinion, misunderstanding that word was a foolish mistake, not a fault on the part of LSAC. If you make foolish mistakes, I have every right to call you a fool. I don't think I ever explicitly called someone stupid though.

You have a "right" to call them a fool even if they aren't being one. But it's a prickish thing to do. So I suppose that gives me the right to call you a prick, but I'd prefer to assume that you're just acting like one because you're stressed about the LSAT.

Dude, welcome to the internet. On here, we say stupid things and insult each other unnecessarily.

[FuManChusco]

Fair enough. Similarly, if you make dickish statements, I have every right to call you a dick.

That's fine. I know I'm being a dick. Sometimes it's the only way to shut the whiners up. I suppose I could just avoid the thread, but this is much more entertaining.

Edit: In response to suspicious, I'm not stressed. I'm fairly confident that I hit my target. Thank you for your concern though.

[KibblesAndVick]

Bottom line - Personal attacks are unnecessary. Get over yourself. Thanks!

Also, I don't believe LSAC will change - but it isn't completely out of the question to write an inquiry either. This most likely will be reflected in the curve.

Why do you think this?

[citrustang]

You say:

My performance on that LG has no bearing on the validity of a challenge. During the test, I recognized the incorrect interpretation made the game unworkable and was able to go back and make the necessary changes to answer the questions correctly. The issue being raised is one concerning language used on the test, not the perceived difficulty of the LG or any personal failures I need to come to terms with on my own time.

I hear:

"I interpreted the wording incorrectly, but it isn't my fault. LSAC shouldn't have used such an ambiguous word."

Taking responsibility, you should say:

"I interpreted the wording incorrectly. It seems that most people were able to properly interpret the wording, perhaps I was out of focus or distracted. Next time, I need to pay more direct attention to the little details that the LSAT tests so I do not repeat the same mistake."

I don't get how you can say you aren't avoiding responsibility/sounding whiny.

I believed you were saying my motivation for submitting a challenge was to avoid taking responsibility for my failure on part of the test. I interpreted "failure" as meaning you concluded I had performed poorly on that LG and was now trying to assuage my hurt pride (an argument that has already appeared earlier in this thread). I responded by saying I think I did just fine on that LG.

However, if by "failure" you simply meant "failed to interpret the word correctly," then we return to the central issue at hand. It's possible the wording was clear and my challenge will be denied. It's possible the wording was ambiguous and a challenge might succeed. I'm letting the LSAC make that particular decision. And their decision will not ultimately be influenced by my motivations; it will rest upon strength of argument and sufficient evidence.

[d34d9823]

Bottom line - Personal attacks are unnecessary. Get over yourself. Thanks!

Also, I don't believe LSAC will change - but it isn't completely out of the question to write an inquiry either. This most likely will be reflected in the curve.

Why do you think this?

+1

It's not curved, it's equated. Whether LSAC will slightly adjust the equating scale after test day is anyone's guess. No one even knows if they do this or not.

[Marionberry]

Get the fuck out of here with your reasonableness.

[FuManChusco]

Bottom line - Personal attacks are unnecessary. Get over yourself. Thanks!

Also, I don't believe LSAC will change - but it isn't completely out of the question to write an inquiry either. This most likely will be reflected in the curve.

Why do you think this?

+1

It's not curved, it's equated. Whether LSAC will slightly adjust the equating scale after test day is anyone's guess. No one even knows if they do this or not.

I'm pretty sure they'll still just use the ping-pong ball lottery machine. Maybe they'll put a couple extra -12 or -14 balls in since the LG was hard though.

[suspicious android]

Dude, welcome to the internet. On here, we say stupid things and insult each other unnecessarily.

Yeah, and this is how I fit in, calling out aggressive assholes. Everyone plays their part, it's all a rich tapestry.

[bostonld]

I'm someone who misinterpreted the error. My first inclination was to think that the wording was faulty, but after sleeping on it I've come to terms with the fact that the ambiguous word choice was most likely fully intentional on the part of the administrators. It's entirely possible that they constructed the questions with this ambiguity in mind, as I was able to "catch" my error via an early question in the section. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but the section itself gave us all the opportunity to catch this, and in reality having to adjust one rule after a couple of questions should not have caused me to full-on panic (which, unfortunately, it did). If I had remained calm I think I would have been able to plow through, but instead I freaked out and ended up having to guess on 4 of them. Maybe I'll change my mind and get angry again when I re-read the question, but for now I guess I'm going to try to take the high road (and pray for another -14 )

EDIT: Also, I'm assuming a significant number of testers made the same error back when this was used as an experimental section, so it will probably be accounted for in some way. For what it's worth, I found the other sections on par with the easier LR/RC practice test sections, so it could have reflected a standard distribution overall.

[citrustang]

I'm someone who misinterpreted the error. My first inclination was to think that the wording was faulty, but after sleeping on it I've come to terms with the fact that the ambiguous word choice was most likely fully intentional on the part of the administrators. It's entirely possible that they constructed the questions with this ambiguity in mind, as I was able to "catch" my error via an early question in the section. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but the section itself gave us all the opportunity to catch this, and in reality having to adjust one rule after a couple of questions should not have caused me to full-on panic (which, unfortunately, it did). If I had remained calm I think I would have been able to plow through, but instead I freaked out and ended up having to guess on 4 of them. Maybe I'll change my mind and get angry again when I re-read the question, but for now I guess I'm going to try to take the high road (and pray for another -14 )

Thanks for chiming in. I hope you performed well on the test, and I wish you all the best!

[bostonld]

Thanks for chiming in. I hope you performed well on the test, and I wish you all the best!

Thanks! The other sections went okay so I'm hoping it balances out overall. Also, my initial post should have read "misinterpreted the rule," not "misinterpreted the error." I guess I've been having difficulties with language use in general since Game #4!

[Fark-o-vision]

citrusstang, right or wrong, is the only one showing the spirit of a litigator. Everyone keeps arguing about pesonal responsibility, or damaging others, or right and wrong. Citrusstang just identified an ambiguity in both the word and the rules and determined that procedural action should be taken against it.

This is the mindset we should all have. I'm not sure I want to go to law school anymore.

[380yarddrives]

No matter what route this topic goes you can be assured of one thing, L-Sack doesn't give a "carpas."

[bk1]

citrusstang, right or wrong, is the only one showing the spirit of a litigator. Everyone keeps arguing about pesonal responsibility, or damaging others, or right and wrong. Citrusstang just identified an ambiguity in both the word and the rules and determined that procedural action should be taken against it.

So you're saying that I should go litigate that the sky is red because I believe it to be true in the face of massive evidence that I am wrong?

[bedefan]

Getting away from ad hominems (ad homines?)...

Isn't it usual for LG games sections occasionally to include words that can be interpreted more than one way, until one tries to answer the questions?

The instance that comes to mind is "any" -- which can mean "some" or "all" depending on context. It can also, in some syntactical structures, be entirely ambiguous.

(E.g. "Did you see the Batman original series before you saw any of the new movies?" With no other context this sentence could be properly interpreted as "Did you see... before at least one (i.e. some) of the new movies?" or as "Did you see... before each (i.e. all) of the new movies?" And if you're thinking "any" could only mean "all" in this situation, think again--the American Heritage Dictionary's Usage Panel was split 67%/33% on this one, with 67% reading "some" as the proper meaning for "any" in a construction like this.)

On at least one PT I took the only way to determine which "any" was meant in a particular stimulus was by scanning answer choices; interpreting "any" as "some" led to 3 correct answers. Therefore I concluded it had to mean "all" in this case (although nothing in the syntax suggested this), which led to only one correct answer. PM me and I can find this PT if you want. I think it was 38, maybe?

I'm afraid the word in question in the interns game from the June 2010 falls into the same category. Syntax didn't make it entirely clear, but the results when one confronted the questions made it quite clear.

Now, I haven't read LSAC's own definitions of what an acceptable level of ambiguity is, so it may be that LSAC has been violating its own rules in its use of "any" all along... Or it may be that this level of ambiguity is considered acceptable by LSAC.

But I think this is a really interesting challenge, and I definitely want to hear want kind of response you get... If any. (trombone slide)

[citrustang]

citrusstang, right or wrong, is the only one showing the spirit of a litigator. Everyone keeps arguing about pesonal responsibility, or damaging others, or right and wrong. Citrusstang just identified an ambiguity in both the word and the rules and determined that procedural action should be taken against it.

So you're saying that I should go litigate that the sky is red because I believe it to be true in the face of massive evidence that I am wrong?

Ever seen the sun set over Arizona?

[bk1]

I'm afraid the word in question in the interns game from the June 2010 falls into the same category. Syntax didn't make it entirely clear, but the results when one confronted the questions made it quite clear.

It does not fall into the same category as you described.

[Knock]

This whole thing reminds me of the PT 36 bus seating game. "Row" and "aisle" really fucked me up, even though it wasn't really ambiguous.

[bedefan]

I'm afraid the word in question in the interns game from the June 2010 falls into the same category. Syntax didn't make it entirely clear, but the results when one confronted the questions made it quite clear.

It does not fall into the same category as you described.

Because you maintain the meaning of the word in question on the interns game was clear given information available in the prompt itself, and therefore did not need to be determined by attempting questions? Or for another reason?

[williammmc]

The essential matter here is not whether it is reflected in scores, and it is not whether people answered the questions correctly or incorrectly in this game as a result of the word in question.

The matter that citrustang is trying to approach is whether or not the usage of a word that has two very different definitions and could have been applied to two different aspects of the game equally is a fault of the LSAC. Frankly, with the rules taken explicitly, it seems that the usage of this word is a fault of the LSAC. It seems to completely contradict their effort to minimize ambiguity in their testing, and because of this citrustang's argument seems to be extremely applicable here.

To try and reduce it to people being whiny or unhappy with their individual performance is to cheapen a very airtight argument, and the people attempting to cheapen this argument seem to miss the point here. The point being that something that could possibly alter performance based on factors not intended to be tested doesn't belong in this particular test.

Please stay on topic, this is a very important challenge citrustang is making.

[bk1]

Because you maintain the meaning of the word in question on the interns game was clear given information available in the prompt itself, and therefore did not need to be determined by attempting questions? Or for another reason?

Because the word in question could not have been used in more than one way in that game. Of the two ways to interpret it, one of them was clearly not a way in which the word is ever used.

[citrustang]

Thank you, williammmc. I may be wrong, but if there is any possibility I am right, then the challenge is valid. The LSAC will decide.