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

[KibblesAndVick]

--ImageRemoved--

I hope LSAC has this on repeat all week.

[380yarddrives]

I'm sorry, but you have no chance on this one. I'd like to know how many words were used on the entire test that may have more than one meaning. If you can't determine the use of a word in that case you don't deserve to get the correct answer anyway.

Just live with it.

[citrustang]

Thank you for posting this. I've been trying to find out the answer to the history of omitting question. Every argument for both sides is basically meaningless. LSAC will not omit this game. People probably misunderstood it. Omitting it would reward those who would have gotten them wrong regardless, and it punishes people who actually answered them correctly. Maybe this is not a good reason to withhold from writing to LSAC, but it's a damn good reason for not omitting the game.

This thread is not a petition for LSAC to remove the game. This thread is meant to serve only three functions: to help people identify a situation they may have encountered during the test, to inform them of how they can contact the LSAC regarding the nature of that situation, and to encourage them to do so.

If you trust the LSAC did not make a mistake on the test, then you can trust they will deny these submitted challenges. Personal attacks are unnecessary.

[mges]

FuManChusco... does it make you feel better to be a know-it-all who attacks people? If so, I feel bad for you. If not, change your attitude.

[FuManChusco]

FuManChusco... does it make you feel better to be a know-it-all who attacks people? If so, I feel bad for you. If not, change your attitude.

I'm not a know-it-all by any means. I certainly didn't get a 180. I usually offer advice on these boards and am generally a nice guy. This is one of the exceptions to the rule, because I think the definition of the term was common sense and you'd have to be a fool to a.) misread that term, and b.) think LSAC is actually going to give a shit.

There's probably a thousand words on the LSAT that could be taken to mean 2 different things. As far as I know there are plenty of words with multiple definitions. Maybe I sound like an asshole, but it is not LSAC's fault that you didn't know what a word meant. It was pretty simple.

[citrustang]

I'm not a know-it-all by any means. I certainly didn't get a 180. I usually offer advice on these boards and am generally a nice guy. This is one of the exceptions to the rule, because I think the definition of the term was common sense and you'd have to be a fool to a.) misread that term, and b.) think LSAC is actually going to give a shit.

There's probably a thousand words on the LSAT that could be taken to mean 2 different things. As far as I know there are plenty of words with multiple definitions. Maybe I sound like an asshole, but it is not LSAC's fault that you didn't know what a word meant. It was pretty simple.

Do you mean to say you feel justified in belittling and acting condescending toward those who may disagree with you?

I'm not sure I've done anything to deserve that kind of response.

[kelsey89]

FuManChusco... does it make you feel better to be a know-it-all who attacks people? If so, I feel bad for you. If not, change your attitude.

I'm not a know-it-all by any means. I certainly didn't get a 180. I usually offer advice on these boards and am generally a nice guy. This is one of the exceptions to the rule, because I think the definition of the term was common sense and you'd have to be a fool to a.) misread that term, and b.) think LSAC is actually going to give a shit.

There's probably a thousand words on the LSAT that could be taken to mean 2 different things. As far as I know there are plenty of words with multiple definitions. Maybe I sound like an asshole, but it is not LSAC's fault that you didn't know what a word meant. It was pretty simple.

+1trillion

[suspicious android]

I don't think the wording was really ambiguous, but it was annoying. I'd be willing to wager money that nothing will be removed from scoring on this test. However, the thing I don't understand, is why so many of the anti-ambiguity people are being such assholes about this. I think Citrusang has done a pretty good job sticking to his relatively modest claims in the face of a lot of bullshit personal attacks.

[citrustang]

I don't think the wording was really ambiguous, but it was annoying. I'd be willing to wager money that nothing will be removed from scoring on this test. However, the thing I don't understand, is why so many of the anti-ambiguity people are being such assholes about this. I think Citrusang has done a pretty good job sticking to his relatively modest claims in the face of a lot of bullshit personal attacks.

Thanks. I may not be right, and I'm not in a position to tell others they are wrong. But if there was any ambiguity, even the tiniest bit, that may have affected the LG in question, then I think people are justified in submitting official challenges to the LSAC.

[FuManChusco]

I'm not a know-it-all by any means. I certainly didn't get a 180. I usually offer advice on these boards and am generally a nice guy. This is one of the exceptions to the rule, because I think the definition of the term was common sense and you'd have to be a fool to a.) misread that term, and b.) think LSAC is actually going to give a shit.

There's probably a thousand words on the LSAT that could be taken to mean 2 different things. As far as I know there are plenty of words with multiple definitions. Maybe I sound like an asshole, but it is not LSAC's fault that you didn't know what a word meant. It was pretty simple.

Do you mean to say you feel justified in belittling and acting condescending toward those who may disagree with you?

I'm not sure I've done anything to deserve that kind of response.

Yes, I do feel that everything I wrote is justified. I wouldn't have submitted it if I didn't. If you think I was belittling or condescending, then so be it. That is how I feel.

[pinkzeppelin]

I don't think the wording was really ambiguous, but it was annoying. I'd be willing to wager money that nothing will be removed from scoring on this test. However, the thing I don't understand, is why so many of the anti-ambiguity people are being such assholes about this. I think Citrusang has done a pretty good job sticking to his relatively modest claims in the face of a lot of bullshit personal attacks.

I think a lot of posters hate people who blame others for all their problems. When you claim that your failure on part of the test was due to the LSAC and absolve yourself of any responsibility, people will look down on you. And frankly, you don't deserve any respect if you're not mature enough to take responsibility for your own failures.

[FuManChusco]

I don't think the wording was really ambiguous, but it was annoying. I'd be willing to wager money that nothing will be removed from scoring on this test. However, the thing I don't understand, is why so many of the anti-ambiguity people are being such assholes about this. I think Citrusang has done a pretty good job sticking to his relatively modest claims in the face of a lot of bullshit personal attacks.

I think a lot of posters hate people who blame others for all their problems. When you claim that your failure on part of the test was due to the LSAC and absolve yourself of any responsibility, people will look down on you. And frankly, you don't deserve any respect if you're not mature enough to take responsibility for your own failures.

+1. Couldn't have said it better myself. I actually tried, but I just came off sounding like a dick.

[Kobe_Teeth]

Citrustang's new avatar...



...stick an orange in there if you want.

[FuManChusco]

nice, Kobe. how about this one?

[d34d9823]

I don't think the wording was really ambiguous, but it was annoying. I'd be willing to wager money that nothing will be removed from scoring on this test. However, the thing I don't understand, is why so many of the anti-ambiguity people are being such assholes about this. I think Citrusang has done a pretty good job sticking to his relatively modest claims in the face of a lot of bullshit personal attacks.

I think a lot of posters hate people who blame others for all their problems. When you claim that your failure on part of the test was due to the LSAC and absolve yourself of any responsibility, people will look down on you. And frankly, you don't deserve any respect if you're not mature enough to take responsibility for your own failures.

He wouldn't have irritated me if it wasn't for his holier than thou attitude.

[truffleshuffle]

He wouldn't have irritated me if it wasn't for his holier than thou attitude.

Cirtustang reminded me of this, but now that someone else mentioned his "holier than thou attitude"...
http://abovethelaw.com/2010/04/smu-law- ... n-warrior/

That or its Jesse J. Clark trying to get into a ABA accredited school.

[Kobe_Teeth]

If Sasha Vujacic ever got to play anymore we could find a euro-trash version of this as well...then citrus could have his preference.

[kelsey89]

--ImageRemoved--

[nematoad]

i think regardless of anything the fact that youve got the initiative to see this through is pretty cool. Even if nothing turns out, which most likely will be the case, you're doing big things just drafting this challenge. Big ups yo.

[scruffs mcguff]

If Sasha Vujacic ever got to play anymore we could find a euro-trash version of this as well...then citrus could have his preference.

Hey don't dog the machine.

[citrustang]

I don't think the wording was really ambiguous, but it was annoying. I'd be willing to wager money that nothing will be removed from scoring on this test. However, the thing I don't understand, is why so many of the anti-ambiguity people are being such assholes about this. I think Citrusang has done a pretty good job sticking to his relatively modest claims in the face of a lot of bullshit personal attacks.

I think a lot of posters hate people who blame others for all their problems. When you claim that your failure on part of the test was due to the LSAC and absolve yourself of any responsibility, people will look down on you. And frankly, you don't deserve any respect if you're not mature enough to take responsibility for your own failures.

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.

[citrustang]

He wouldn't have irritated me if it wasn't for his holier than thou attitude.

I'm truly sorry I've come across that way.

[Marionberry]

The reason some people sound like dicks in this thread is that they're claiming that the reason people messed up that game is because they're "fools" or that they don't understand the english language. That's condescending, and pretty stupid itself. I messed up that game, I misinterpreted that rule. I don't think I did this because it was worded ambiguously, and I don't expect lsac to do anything about it. Its my mistake and I own it. Was I careless or did I fuck up up under pressure? Probably both. But to claim that a bunch of people, many of whom are 170+ pt'ers, messed it up because they are stupid is just wrong, and kind of dickish.

[pinkzeppelin]

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.

[FuManChusco]

The reason some people sound like dicks in this thread is that they're claiming that the reason people messed up that game is because they're "fools" or that they don't understand the english language. That's condescending, and pretty stupid itself. I messed up that game, I misinterpreted that rule. I don't think I did this because it was worded ambiguously, and I don't expect lsac to do anything about it. Its my mistake and I own it. Was I careless or did I fuck up up under pressure? Probably both. But to claim that a bunch of people, many of whom are 170+ pt'ers, messed it up because they are stupid is just wrong, and kind of dickish.

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.