Top Law Schools

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

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.

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The withdrawn questions are all from different exams.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 whenever someone mentions them.

If anyone's interested in another game that frequently makes test-takers 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).

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

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.

bk187 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.

darby girl wrote:

bk187 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.

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

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

Nevermind.

bk187 wrote:

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

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.

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.

bk187 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.

bk187 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.

bk187 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.

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.

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.

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. And on this test it isn't even about homonyms. It is about accepted word usage.

While you are getting at the right sentiment, seasons =/= seasonings. 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

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!

bk187 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.