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

User avatar
citrustang
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 5:22 pm

Re: Official challenge to the 4th game in the scored LG section

Postby citrustang » Tue Jun 08, 2010 4:29 pm

sca218ml wrote:Even if you did misinterpret it, and I don't see how you could, the first question made it obvious as to what quality of the individuals in question the term had to refer to (how's that for ambiguity?).

Nicely done. :D

User avatar
Moose Thompson
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 9:38 pm

Re: Official challenge to the 4th game in the scored LG section

Postby Moose Thompson » Tue Jun 08, 2010 4:31 pm

rklafehn wrote:Can someone post the ambiguous word? Or is that against rules? I don't feel like that is against rules.



If you read the entire thread you will stumble upon it. Also, you will be all caught up on the conversation.


OP, I feel your pain, but I don't think your argument has a chance. I look forward to seeing the actual question when the test is released, but based on the descriptions I've heard here it is unlikely that this game will be successfully contested. Good luck, though.

atrides15693
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 4:29 pm

Re: Official challenge to the 4th game in the scored LG section

Postby atrides15693 » Tue Jun 08, 2010 4:36 pm

For those who don't think the term can be understood in two ways, consider the very name of this blog: http://inthefield.blogs.cnn.com/

In the context of the profession we're talking about, this would be a very common use of the term (ie, it means "on location"). Personally I think this is a more cogent argument than the dictionary definition one: there are many definitions, but in the context the term has a common meaning.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the term couldn't have been understood correctly, only that the "clear and unambiguous" policy wasn't really followed here.

User avatar
mallard
Posts: 1092
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 5:45 am

Re: Official challenge to the 4th game in the scored LG section

Postby mallard » Tue Jun 08, 2010 4:38 pm

atrides15693 wrote:For those who don't think the term can be understood in two ways, consider the very name of this blog: http://inthefield.blogs.cnn.com/

In the context of the profession we're talking about, this would be a very common use of the term (ie, it means "on location"). Personally I think this is a more cogent argument than the dictionary definition one: there are many definitions, but in the context the term has a common meaning.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the term couldn't have been understood correctly, only that the "clear and unambiguous" policy wasn't really followed here.


This is exactly what I was saying earlier: "the field," understood locationally, is a general term that means away from the office or theoretical environment and in some sort of practical setting.

budafied
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:04 am

Re: Official challenge to the 4th game in the scored LG section

Postby budafied » Tue Jun 08, 2010 4:40 pm

chicagobullsfan wrote:I'll have to chime in and add that it didn't even register in my mind that the word could be taken a different way, not even for a millisecond, until I saw this thread. And I had a whale of a time doing this section ANYWAYS, without this secondary confusion thrown into the loop.


Agreed, except I owned LG.

This may be irrelevant, but I think it's worth noting that some of us understood the meaning of the "questionable" term from the get-go with absolutely no problems.

User avatar
Godlike
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 1:09 am

Re: Official challenge to the 4th game in the scored LG section

Postby Godlike » Tue Jun 08, 2010 4:45 pm

scruffs mcguff wrote:Yeah I realize that. I'm just curious if you can get it down to only one correct answer if you misinterpreted a word.


No if you interpret the wrong way, you cannot find onw right answer for the subsequent problems. However, this does not mean you realize the mistake anytime soon, as if you the question says something to the effect of "which of these cannot be true" as soon as you find an answer that cannot be true you may move on without trying all the answers...

User avatar
scruffs mcguff
Posts: 304
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 9:49 pm

Re: Official challenge to the 4th game in the scored LG section

Postby scruffs mcguff » Tue Jun 08, 2010 4:54 pm

Godlike wrote:
scruffs mcguff wrote:Yeah I realize that. I'm just curious if you can get it down to only one correct answer if you misinterpreted a word.


No if you interpret the wrong way, you cannot find onw right answer for the subsequent problems. However, this does not mean you realize the mistake anytime soon, as if you the question says something to the effect of "which of these cannot be true" as soon as you find an answer that cannot be true you may move on without trying all the answers...


Yeah but just because thats the way we answer these questions doesn't mean it is correct.

User avatar
Bildungsroman
Posts: 5548
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:42 pm

Re: Official challenge to the 4th game in the scored LG section

Postby Bildungsroman » Tue Jun 08, 2010 4:57 pm

All this thread needs now is an internet petition.

DanInALionsDen
Posts: 296
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 1:00 am

Re: Official challenge to the 4th game in the scored LG section

Postby DanInALionsDen » Tue Jun 08, 2010 4:57 pm

I really want to know what the problem setup was now. This ambiguity is killing me.

Hey-O
Posts: 719
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:50 pm

Re: Official challenge to the 4th game in the scored LG section

Postby Hey-O » Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:00 pm

I did not make this mistake. I didn't even register that there could be another meaning of for the term. However, once it was brought to my attention I see how people could easily have made the mistake.

It is unusual to use the term in that way, except for the journalism profession which actually uses the term frequently to mean, 'on assignment in a specific place.'

I wish the people challenging luck, even though I had no problem with the game. If I missed any questions it was because I wasn't fast enough not because the game was poorly worded.

I think that people who are worrying that LSAC will deduct the six questions from the game are worrying needlessly. I don't think that would be an option. They wouldn't mess up a whole test like that.

If they take any action they might cancel the score/refund the test fee for those who complain. If I were amongst the complainers that is what I would ask LSAC for. That is reasonable and they might do it

User avatar
Philipsssssss
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:57 pm

Re: Official challenge to the 4th game in the scored LG section

Postby Philipsssssss » Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:22 pm


I think that the rule about the 2 Variables in question was stated in a little bit of an Out-of-Scope way. The term "profession" wasn't really present anywhere in the game "stimuli".


I don't recall that on other games there was a name for something that mean something that was named differently.

If i recall correctly, being someones "assistant" doesn't really strike as being in that "profession".
It just sounds confusing and easy to overlook...
Last edited by Philipsssssss on Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: Official challenge to the 4th game in the scored LG section

Postby d34d9823 » Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:23 pm

Philipsssssss wrote:
I think that the rule about the 2 Variables in question was stated in a little bit of an Out-of-Scope way. The term "profession" wasn't really present anywhere in the game "stimuli".


I don't recall on other games there was a name for something that mean something that was named differently.

If i recall correctly, being someones "assistant" doesn't really strike as being in that "profession".

This was my brother's argument as well. I can't see LSAC buying it though.

Ryhart
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 6:17 pm

Re: Official challenge to the 4th game in the scored LG section

Postby Ryhart » Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:26 pm

Quick question: Does anyone remember if it was the word "train" or "work" which was the verb associated with the term in question?

User avatar
oxford_don
Posts: 237
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:06 am

Re: Official challenge to the 4th game in the scored LG section

Postby oxford_don » Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:43 pm

[]
Last edited by oxford_don on Sun May 11, 2014 11:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

engsplitter
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 5:12 pm

Re: Official challenge to the 4th game in the scored LG section

Postby engsplitter » Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:46 pm

i tried doing the whole thing thinking the 'x and y must do together' 'z and w must not do together' meant one thing then realize the questions didn't make sense
so i went back and did it using the other way around and it worked fine, but i ran out of time
it was kind of bull

Hey-O
Posts: 719
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:50 pm

Re: Official challenge to the 4th game in the scored LG section

Postby Hey-O » Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:46 pm

oxford_don wrote:To the OP and those who agree with this challenge, what do you see happening IF LSAC agrees that the ambiguity somehow compromised the fairness of the game? Just curious what the options really are.


See what I wrote above. I think the best they could hope for is a refund and retake. LSAC won't throw out the that many questions.

User avatar
Gallon_Ziplock
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 3:47 am

Re: Official challenge to the 4th game in the scored LG section

Postby Gallon_Ziplock » Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:47 pm

I posted last night on the thread that no longer exists, but here is a recap:

I regularly score 170+ on LSAT tests, am a native English speaker, and consider LG's to be one of my best sections. That said, I have never struggled so hard on a logic games section in recent memory. I skipped the mulch one to do the game in question, and promptly misinterpreted the word in question in the same way that citrustang and so many others did. I made it through the questions by eliminating what I thought were all the wrong answers and choosing the remaining ones. I eventually caught my error but by the time I tried to go back and redo my diagram and the questions I had used up my time and was forced to make only slightly-educated guesses on both the mulch game and the 4th game. To go from averaging -1 to -3 on logic games to yesterday's performance is extremely frustrating. I want to thank citrustang for bringing attention to this issue, absolutely intend to write LSAC, and encourage everyone else who had the same problem to do the same.

engsplitter
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 5:12 pm

Re: Official challenge to the 4th game in the scored LG section

Postby engsplitter » Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:48 pm

Xnegd wrote:Unfortunately, I got too upset (because I'd never missed a LG on any of the practice tests) and I think this mentally screwed with me for the rest of the test. I know it especially did on the Reading Comp...

this is identical to what happened to me

User avatar
citrustang
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 5:22 pm

Re: Official challenge to the 4th game in the scored LG section

Postby citrustang » Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:49 pm

Ryhart wrote:Quick question: Does anyone remember if it was the word "train" or "work" which was the verb associated with the term in question?

I believe the word was "work." Is there a major difference between the two?

oxford_don wrote:To the OP and those who agree with this challenge, what do you see happening IF LSAC agrees that the ambiguity somehow compromised the fairness of the game? Just curious what the options really are.

I won't hazard a prediction. LSAC can deal with the matter as they deem fit. All I'm responsible for is raising an issue I think is worth some consideration.

rklafehn
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 6:59 pm

Re: Official challenge to the 4th game in the scored LG section

Postby rklafehn » Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:53 pm

ahhh.. the word was "field"?

As in the assistants could either be a writer or a photographer (their field).

"Field of work" implies "profession" not "physical location".

I do not believe there was any ambiguity. If they were working actual fields as opposed to countries then the people supporting a challenge of this game may have a chance at being successful.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18414
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Official challenge to the 4th game in the scored LG section

Postby bk1 » Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:53 pm

ITT: People trying to rationalize a misinterpretation of their own making and petitioning LSAC to agree with this rationalization rather than owning up to the fact that they are wrong.

User avatar
citrustang
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 5:22 pm

Re: Official challenge to the 4th game in the scored LG section

Postby citrustang » Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:56 pm

If you think we're wrong, then you have nothing to worry about.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18414
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Official challenge to the 4th game in the scored LG section

Postby bk1 » Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:57 pm

citrustang wrote:If you think we're wrong, then you have nothing to worry about.


I think it is less about worrying and more about laughing.

User avatar
alphagamma
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:16 pm

Re: Official challenge to the 4th game in the scored LG section

Postby alphagamma » Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:58 pm

rklafehn wrote:ahhh.. the word was "field"?

As in the assistants could either be a writer or a photographer (their field).

"Field of work" implies "profession" not "physical location".

I do not believe there was any ambiguity. If they were working actual fields as opposed to countries then the people supporting a challenge of this game may have a chance at being successful.

The problem is that they were reporters (IIRC). And reporters work in the field.

Fark-o-vision
Posts: 590
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:41 pm

Re: Official challenge to the 4th game in the scored LG section

Postby Fark-o-vision » Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:59 pm

I kind of want to see this happen just because of all of the smug on this thread.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: #gobroncos, bearedman8, BobBoblaw, dontsaywhatyoumean, Instrumental, Lahtso Nuggin, mrgstephe and 16 guests