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

[FuManChusco]

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.

This is what I've been trying to say the entire time. It just wasn't ambiguous at all. It had a clear definition.

[bedefan]

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.

Not how I remember it, but I could be wrong. (I didn't find the word ambiguous when I took the test, but after I read the OP, I changed my mind.) I guess we'll see when the test is published.

[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.

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?

No, I'm saying the term was ambiguous. To a degree that it should be removed, well, I think I'm with the others on this one. However, if I remember the wording accurately (and I may not) either interpretation is valid and makes sense in common usage. Applying the rule to the game didn't immediately clear it up, because the first question could be answered in a manner that led one to believe they had obtained a correct result.

I don't think it will be thrown out. I don't even really think it should. However, Citrusstang identified a possible inconsistency in the test and is pursuing it because, for no other reason, the rules matter. He hasn't been acting like a baby (like most of the rest), and has stated over and again that he'll drop it if LSAC doesn't see a problem.

That people are so dedicated to breaking this down is interesting. Let the man pursue his cause.

Basically my argument comes down to this--most of you are arguing about what is "right" or "wrong", or what is "good" or "bad". Citrusstrang is the only one focused on what may or not be valid within the rule set. Often attorneys are going to do wrong, or bad, things. Our job will be to identify what can and cannot be done within the rule set.

[williammmc]

Though it is noble to say you may be wrong, it doesn't seem like that is the case. Given the two different definitions, it seems that multiple outcomes could come of their application to either category.

If the LSAC were unable to recognize this fact I would be shocked, it is logic and analytical skills the test intends to determine, and a basic usage of either of those things can pretty much seal the fact that your argument is right on point. Good luck and let me know if there is anything I can do to assist.

[bk1]

No, I'm saying the term was ambiguous. To a degree that it should be removed, well, I think I'm with the others on this one. However, if I remember the wording accurately (and I may not) either interpretation is valid and makes sense in common usage. Applying the rule to the game didn't immediately clear it up, because the first question could be answered in a manner that led one to believe they had obtained a correct result.

I don't think it will be thrown out. I don't even really think it should. However, Citrusstang identified a possible inconsistency in the test and is pursuing it because, for no other reason, the rules matter. He hasn't been acting like a baby (like most of the rest), and has stated over and again that he'll drop it if LSAC doesn't see a problem.

That people are so dedicated to breaking this down is interesting. Let the man pursue his cause.

Basically my argument comes down to this--most of you are arguing about what is "right" or "wrong", or what is "good" or "bad". Citrusstrang is the only one focused on what may or not be valid within the rule set. Often attorneys are going to do wrong, or bad, things. Our job will be to identify what can and cannot be done within the rule set.

Most if not all words in the English language are inherently ambiguous (i.e. when they lack context). However, in this case, with this context, either interpretation is not valid.

We are letting him pursue his cause. He has every right to petition LSAC all he wants. It doesn't mean that people are not free to disagree with him on an internet forum.

On this question, within its rule set, there is only one interpretation of that word that is valid. It is the "right" interpretation. Every other interpretation of that word is "wrong."

[FuManChusco]

No, I'm saying the term was ambiguous. To a degree that it should be removed, well, I think I'm with the others on this one. However, if I remember the wording accurately (and I may not) either interpretation is valid and makes sense in common usage. Applying the rule to the game didn't immediately clear it up, because the first question could be answered in a manner that led one to believe they had obtained a correct result.

I don't think it will be thrown out. I don't even really think it should. However, Citrusstang identified a possible inconsistency in the test and is pursuing it because, for no other reason, the rules matter. He hasn't been acting like a baby (like most of the rest), and has stated over and again that he'll drop it if LSAC doesn't see a problem.

That people are so dedicated to breaking this down is interesting. Let the man pursue his cause.

Basically my argument comes down to this--most of you are arguing about what is "right" or "wrong", or what is "good" or "bad". Citrusstrang is the only one focused on what may or not be valid within the rule set. Often attorneys are going to do wrong, or bad, things. Our job will be to identify what can and cannot be done within the rule set.

That's what people do on the internet. They argue and act like dicks for no reason what so ever. It kills time and is moderately entertaining. I honestly couldn't give 2 shits if he writes to LSAC or not. Good for him if he wants to be Mr. Righteous. It will have zero impact on my life. However, I find myself having a good time sitting here and mocking people for not understanding what the term meant. I also still thinks it sounds like citrus is whining no matter what his argument is.

[Fark-o-vision]

No, I'm saying the term was ambiguous. To a degree that it should be removed, well, I think I'm with the others on this one. However, if I remember the wording accurately (and I may not) either interpretation is valid and makes sense in common usage. Applying the rule to the game didn't immediately clear it up, because the first question could be answered in a manner that led one to believe they had obtained a correct result.

I don't think it will be thrown out. I don't even really think it should. However, Citrusstang identified a possible inconsistency in the test and is pursuing it because, for no other reason, the rules matter. He hasn't been acting like a baby (like most of the rest), and has stated over and again that he'll drop it if LSAC doesn't see a problem.

That people are so dedicated to breaking this down is interesting. Let the man pursue his cause.

Basically my argument comes down to this--most of you are arguing about what is "right" or "wrong", or what is "good" or "bad". Citrusstrang is the only one focused on what may or not be valid within the rule set. Often attorneys are going to do wrong, or bad, things. Our job will be to identify what can and cannot be done within the rule set.

That's what people do on the internet. They argue and act like dicks for no reason what so ever. It kills time and is moderately entertaining. I honestly couldn't give 2 shits if he writes to LSAC or not. Good for him if he wants to be Mr. Righteous. It will have zero impact on my life. However, I find myself having a good time sitting here and mocking people for not understanding what the term meant. I also still thinks it sounds like citrus is whining no matter what his argument is.

First of all, completely agree. That's what the internet is here for, that's what we do. I really wasn't trying to call anyone out. I was only saying that Citrusstang is making his point in the manner I would expect a litigator to, while everyone else just seems to be howling. I love the howling. It's the illustration of what legal practice really will be like that has me bummed. I.e. Rarely dealing with what is right, but instead what is legal.

[goawaybee]

That's what people do on the internet. They argue and act like dicks for no reason what so ever. It kills time and is moderately entertaining. I honestly couldn't give 2 shits if he writes to LSAC or not. Good for him if he wants to be Mr. Righteous. It will have zero impact on my life.

BAHAHAHA. THE TRUTH.

so many ways to spend your precious time vs. being consumed by one word on one exam. Insanity, but amusing. If it were one word that had an impact on a single Q I am fairly certain most people wouldn't be so bothered or even if the whole Mulch/Intern combo didn't occur I am sure it wouldn't have been such an issue. One of those things, I walk out the door and my cat got ran over, my brother got shot, etc...The world keeps spinning and 99.99999% of the people in the universe could give a shit.

Onward people, wage your wars. I do support anyone willing to go head on with an organization such as LSAC. Just plain fun to push a little here and there. I am amazed at the amount of traffic in this thread. Some dazed & confused thing, "you just gotta, just gotta shake it off"

[380yarddrives]

This thread is great, but I still don't understand something... How in the hell does a group of unpaid workers in a open grassy area have to do with answering the game? I just don't see how any logical person would interpret the word to have that meaning.

[citrustang]

This thread is great, but I still don't understand something... How in the hell does a group of unpaid workers in a open grassy area have to do with answering the game? I just don't see how any logical person would interpret the word to have that meaning.

Rest assured, there is no mention of "open grassy areas" in my letter to the LSAC.

[citrustang]

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.

[bk1]

The word can just as easily be used to refer to different specializations as it can be used to distinguish between topics or areas of interest.

None of these means geographic region.

[citrustang]

The word can just as easily be used to refer to different specializations as it can be used to distinguish between topics or areas of interest.

None of these means geographic region.

Some have previously argued the names were not referring to actual locations, but instead to different topics or areas of interest.

[Nola]

How long will it take to get an idea as to whether or not this is gaining traction with lsac?

[bk1]

Some have previously argued the names were not referring to actual locations, but instead to different topics or areas of interest.

This is such a monumental stretch, yet it still does not help. Even if a geographic region was a topic or area of interest, it would not be referred to in this way.

[380yarddrives]

Some have previously argued the names were not referring to actual locations, but instead to different topics or areas of interest.

This is such a monumental stretch, yet it still does not help. Even if a geographic region was a topic or area of interest, it would not be referred to in this way.

What did they mean by "Chicano theater"?

[bk1]

?

What does this have to do with my post?

[380yarddrives]

What did they mean by "Chicano theater"?

What does this have to do with my post?

The term seems ambiguous and I was curious of which definition was intended.

[citrustang]

What did they mean by "Chicano theater"?

What does this have to do with my post?

Maybe he/she is trying to kill this thread.

[getitdone]

the games were legit.. stop crying..

[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).

[Knock]

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).

I'm all for a nice curve

[nematoad]

if there is a curve comparable to December 09 I will be a very very happy young man

[Knock]

if there is a curve comparable to December 09 I will be a very very happy young man

Same. I doubt it though. If only...

[Dany]

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!