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

User avatar
Barbie
Posts: 3746
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 8:51 pm

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

Postby Barbie » Wed Jun 09, 2010 9:56 pm

the section we speak of was definitely not experimental, because I had two RC, and had this LG. :)

User avatar
FuManChusco
Posts: 1217
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:56 pm

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

Postby FuManChusco » Wed Jun 09, 2010 9:56 pm

TheOcho wrote:If this has already been addressed, I apologize for the redundancy.

How are you certain this particular LG section is a scored section? I am aware that in most (if not all) tests the experimental section is in section one, two, or three. What if an individual, hypothetically speaking, had two LG in the first three sections?


It's been discussed at length in this thread and others. I personally only had 1 LG section and I had mulch/interns. It is 100% the scored section.

User avatar
LSAT Blog
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:24 pm

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

Postby LSAT Blog » Wed Jun 09, 2010 10:13 pm

KibblesAndVick wrote:If you look at the number of questions it's 6 out of 6500 or ~ 0.09% of all questions. If we assume that all 6 were from different tests (IDK if that is actually the case) then 6 out of 59 tests or ~ 10.2% of all tests contain an omitted question. If you think about it in those terms it might make more sense.

However, we're not trying to calculate the odds that they will remove something from the test. We're interested in whether or not they'll adjust an entire game. There is no precedent for this so the statistics aren't as helpful as they would be for RC and LR.


The withdrawn questions are all from different exams. (Btw, there are 64 exams total - it's simply that 59 of them are numbered. Easy to forget, I know. There are also the 3 SuperPrep exams, June 07, and Feb 97.)

I know what Bpobryan means about it seeming like there are more than 6. They do tend to stand out like sore thumbs. It makes LSAC :oops: whenever someone mentions them.

If anyone's interested in another game that frequently makes test-takers :x over supposed ambiguity, check out PrepTest 3 (December 1991), Game 4. It's about planes in an air show, and the "issue" affects the entire game. I know almost no one has this exam, but if you do, it's worth a look. (It's contained within TriplePrep 2 (out-of-print - cheap in the used-and-new section on Amazon).

TheOcho
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 9:46 pm

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

Postby TheOcho » Wed Jun 09, 2010 10:13 pm

That is about the most depressing thing I have heard all day, considering I nailed the apparently experimental section.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18402
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

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

Postby bk1 » Wed Jun 09, 2010 10:34 pm

CastleRock wrote:
darby girl wrote:Just watched the news. The anchor specifically said "We have several reporters in the field right now..." JUST letting you know :).


Just to let you know, that isn't referring to a specific location. In that context it does not work at all.


This is what we are trying to tell people who will not listen.

User avatar
Barbie
Posts: 3746
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 8:51 pm

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

Postby Barbie » Wed Jun 09, 2010 10:42 pm

bk1 wrote:
CastleRock wrote:
darby girl wrote:Just watched the news. The anchor specifically said "We have several reporters in the field right now..." JUST letting you know :).


Just to let you know, that isn't referring to a specific location. In that context it does not work at all.


This is what we are trying to tell people who will not listen.


Yes it was referring to a specific location.

User avatar
FuManChusco
Posts: 1217
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:56 pm

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

Postby FuManChusco » Wed Jun 09, 2010 10:45 pm

darby girl wrote:
bk1 wrote:
CastleRock wrote:
darby girl wrote:Just watched the news. The anchor specifically said "We have several reporters in the field right now..." JUST letting you know :).


Just to let you know, that isn't referring to a specific location. In that context it does not work at all.


This is what we are trying to tell people who will not listen.


Yes it was referring to a specific location.


It still doesn't change the fact that the definition of the ambiguous word you are referring to does not work in the context of the test. that is the point at issue here.

WestOfTheRest
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:10 pm

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

Postby WestOfTheRest » Wed Jun 09, 2010 10:51 pm

FuManChusco wrote:
darby girl wrote:
Yes it was referring to a specific location.


It still doesn't change the fact that the definition of the ambiguous word you are referring to does not work in the context of the test. that is the point at issue here.


In that context it is a broad definition of anything outside of the home base. Regardless of whether the news caster was referring to one specific place in that term

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18402
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

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

Postby bk1 » Wed Jun 09, 2010 10:52 pm

darby girl wrote:Yes it was referring to a specific location.


Image

Nevermind.

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 » Wed Jun 09, 2010 10:59 pm

bk1 wrote:
darby girl wrote:Yes it was referring to a specific location.


Image

Nevermind.


You're both right. The field, in that context, refers to both the physical location that the reporters are at, and to the fact that they are currently not in at the station. It means that the reporters are gone from the homebase. Thus, they are somewhere else: the field. It is both a general location and a specific location.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18402
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

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

Postby bk1 » Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:03 pm

Hey-O wrote:You're both right. The field, in that context, refers to both the physical location that the reporters are at, and to the fact that they are currently not in at the station. It means that the reporters are gone from the homebase. Thus, they are somewhere else: the field. It is both a general location and a specific location.


My point is that on the 4th LG there is one and only one interpretation. Nothing is going to change that, there is no counterexample to make the way it was worded on the test have multiple options.

User avatar
FuManChusco
Posts: 1217
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:56 pm

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

Postby FuManChusco » Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:05 pm

bk1 wrote:
Hey-O wrote:You're both right. The field, in that context, refers to both the physical location that the reporters are at, and to the fact that they are currently not in at the station. It means that the reporters are gone from the homebase. Thus, they are somewhere else: the field. It is both a general location and a specific location.


My point is that on the 4th LG there is one and only one interpretation. Nothing is going to change that, there is no counterexample to make the way it was worded on the test have multiple options.


I don't think people will ever understand. they're extracting the word from the phrase and giving it multiple meanings. that can be done with any word. in the context of the test the ambiguous word doesn't make sense unless you reword the sentence and even then, I doubt LSAC would use that phrasing. there are much better ways to refer to a location.

User avatar
Barbie
Posts: 3746
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 8:51 pm

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

Postby Barbie » Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:05 pm

bk1 wrote:
Hey-O wrote:You're both right. The field, in that context, refers to both the physical location that the reporters are at, and to the fact that they are currently not in at the station. It means that the reporters are gone from the homebase. Thus, they are somewhere else: the field. It is both a general location and a specific location.


My point is that on the 4th LG there is one and only one interpretation. Nothing is going to change that, there is no counterexample to make the way it was worded on the test have multiple options.



can you please PM me with the exact wording. I cannot remember it perfectly.

User avatar
truffleshuffle
Posts: 84
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 11:42 pm

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

Postby truffleshuffle » Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:14 pm

bk1 wrote:
Hey-O wrote:You're both right. The field, in that context, refers to both the physical location that the reporters are at, and to the fact that they are currently not in at the station. It means that the reporters are gone from the homebase. Thus, they are somewhere else: the field. It is both a general location and a specific location.


My point is that on the 4th LG there is one and only one interpretation. Nothing is going to change that, there is no counterexample to make the way it was worded on the test have multiple options.


Exactly, there is a change in tense that leaves open only one type of interpretation. Basically you have to realize that they weren't ______ed in the ______, they ______ in a _____ before being sent out.

mst
Posts: 925
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:01 am

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

Postby mst » Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:25 pm

I agree "field" can mean specific location. BUT I can't remember the last time I heard an anchor say "We have reporters in the fields". It just doesn't make sense.

YES, the word does have an alternate meaning. YES, I applaud you bringing that up to LSAC, they should be more careful (if not for the sake of having different answers, then for the sake of not having to defend their test against people who got nervous and didn't read the test clearly).

NO, I don't think you should have been confused if you approached the question with any standard of common sense. You don't have to argue that, it's just my opinion. I equate you guys misreading this to the following:

Question: Wal mart sells apples and oranges in 4 different seasons, Season 1, Season 2, Season 3, Season 4.***MORE INFO HERE*** What season did Wal Mart sell both oranges and apples?

You: What kind of seasons are they putting on their oranges and apples?! SALT?! PEPPER?! OREGANO?!


It's just not a truly legitimate problem. Yes, they didn't specifically state that they were talking about in the context that it was annual seasons. And yes, somebody that was speeding through the question and looking at the key terms while rushing to make a diagram could easily be confused. But LSAT doesn't have the duty to spell out every single gosh-darn thing for you like they're feeding you baby food. They never said they would. Your test prep book might have, your tutor might have. But I can't remember signing up for the LSAT, or beginning to take the games section, and getting a clause that says "THE RULES WILL BE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR WITH NO ROOM FOR ERROR." Law school's should be allowed to create tests that test some form of common sense.

I think we can all agree that the word has a double meaning that could have been clearer. We just don't agree with you that it posed such a severe risk to a test taker approaching the test with a standard level of awareness. Send your letter, but don't make a big deal out of this in the sense that it unfairly hurt your scores.

nireca
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:18 pm

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

Postby nireca » Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:28 pm

Can someone please pm me exactly what this is all about? I blacked out during LG and as far as I could tell I nailed the last game. Now, however, I'm starting to worry a bit. Thanks.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18402
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

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

Postby bk1 » Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:32 pm

mst wrote:I agree "field" can mean specific location. BUT I can't remember the last time I heard an anchor say "We have reporters in the fields". It just doesn't make sense.

YES, the word does have an alternate meaning. YES, I applaud you bringing that up to LSAC, they should be more careful (if not for the sake of having different answers, then for the sake of not having to defend their test against people who got nervous and didn't read the test clearly).

NO, I don't think you should have been confused if you approached the question with any standard of common sense. You don't have to argue that, it's just my opinion. I equate you guys misreading this to the following:

Question: Wal mart sells apples and oranges in 4 different seasons, Season 1, Season 2, Season 3, Season 4.***MORE INFO HERE*** What season did Wal Mart sell both oranges and apples?

You: What kind of seasons are they putting on their oranges and apples?! SALT?! PEPPER?! OREGANO?!


It's just not a truly legitimate problem. Yes, they didn't specifically state that they were talking about in the context that it was annual seasons. And yes, somebody that was speeding through the question and looking at the key terms while rushing to make a diagram could easily be confused. But LSAT doesn't have the duty to spell out every single gosh-darn thing for you like they're feeding you baby food. They never said they would. Your test prep book might have, your tutor might have. But I can't remember signing up for the LSAT, or beginning to take the games section, and getting a clause that says "THE RULES WILL BE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR WITH NO ROOM FOR ERROR." Law school's should be allowed to create tests that test some form of common sense.

I think we can all agree that the word has a double meaning that could have been clearer. We just don't agree with you that it posed such a severe risk to a test taker approaching the test with a standard level of awareness. Send your letter, but don't make a big deal out of this in the sense that it unfairly hurt your scores.


While you are getting at the right sentiment, seasons =/= seasonings. :P And on this test it isn't even about homonyms. It is about accepted word usage.

mst
Posts: 925
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:01 am

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

Postby mst » Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:35 pm

While you are getting at the right sentiment, seasons =/= seasonings. :P And on this test it isn't even about homonyms. It is about accepted word usage.


You get where I'm going, haha. Make the verb form work! PS I like you because unlike everyone else in this thread you can read with COMMON SENSE

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18402
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

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

Postby bk1 » Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:36 pm

mst wrote:You get where I'm going, haha. Make the verb form work! PS I like you because unlike everyone else in this thread you can read with COMMON SENSE


Don't forget FuManChusco, he's fightin' the good fight!

User avatar
FuManChusco
Posts: 1217
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:56 pm

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

Postby FuManChusco » Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:39 pm

bk1 wrote:
mst wrote:You get where I'm going, haha. Make the verb form work! PS I like you because unlike everyone else in this thread you can read with COMMON SENSE


Don't forget FuManChusco, he's fightin' the good fight!


haha, I've been bickering all day. I think I might need a better time killer for the next 3 weeks. this unhealthy addiction to tls is just torturing me more.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18402
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

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

Postby bk1 » Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:40 pm

FuManChusco wrote:haha, I've been bickering all day. I think I might need a better time killer for the next 3 weeks. this unhealthy addiction to tls is just torturing me more.


I'm in the same boat. Once I finish finals maybe I'll be able to actually relax.

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 » Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:43 pm

mst wrote:I can't remember signing up for the LSAT, or beginning to take the games section, and getting a clause that says "THE RULES WILL BE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR WITH NO ROOM FOR ERROR." Law school's should be allowed to create tests that test some form of common sense.

That is precisely what LSAC claims to deliver.

Image

mst wrote:I think we can all agree that the word has a double meaning that could have been clearer. We just don't agree with you that it posed such a severe risk to a test taker approaching the test with a standard level of awareness. Send your letter, but don't make a big deal out of this in the sense that it unfairly hurt your scores.

I have in no way ever claimed the alleged ambiguity unfairly hurt my scores.

raiser
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 1:32 am

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

Postby raiser » Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:59 pm

I interpreted the rule correctly, initially, but because the terminology was different between the rule with the ambiguous term and the previous rule I concluded they refer ed to different conditions. I changed my interpretation and forged ahead (wrongly). I did glance back at the setup for a hint and didn't see anything.

I don't expect LSAC to do anything, but I would argue that they are not testing what they claim, the ability to draw logical conclusions based on the 'structure of relationships.' In this case the term is very commonly used for two aspects of the game and it was not clear which aspects where in relation.

As an aside, I don't particularly like the Logic games because chance does play such a large part.

User avatar
Ragged
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:39 pm

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

Postby Ragged » Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:11 am

After thinking about it today I think I ended up misinterpreting this rule also, but not so much because of the word in question. Rather it was ambigous because A) of an inclusion of another word in the rule which seemed to imply physical location and B) because the very next rule used a different and a much clearer word to mean the same thing as in the previous rule. I'm not saying that the question was unfair, but it certainly could be phrased in a much simpler and clearer way. They should have just used the wording and the structur of the next rule, for the rule under question, that would rule out any possibility of misinterpretation whatsoever. I hope people who know whats going on can understand what I'm talking about here - trying to stay within the rules of the forum.

I just can't believe that I would fail to make such an easy inference and answer a single question in 9 minutes. That's something that is unprecedented for me. In fact, I seem to remember testing the set up for the inference that turned out to be key. Unfortunatly I came up empty because either I simply failed to account for all the rules, or because I had a rule wrong. The latter seems most likely to me.


Now a quesiton. Is there a way to get the LSAC to send me my question book from the test? I would really love to look at my diagrams to see what went wrong.

User avatar
Ragged
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:39 pm

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

Postby Ragged » Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:12 am

raiser wrote:I interpreted the rule correctly, initially, but because the terminology was different between the rule with the ambiguous term and the previous rule I concluded they refer ed to different conditions. I changed my interpretation and forged ahead (wrongly). I did glance back at the setup for a hint and didn't see anything.


The same thing happened to me I think.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexandros, BobBoblaw, Chipotle85, Google [Bot], maybeman, neptunian and 26 guests