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

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 3:19 pm

No, #6 is exactly what I said.

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 3:24 pm

citrustang wrote:I'm not trying to tell the LSAC what to do. I just think there are sufficient grounds for a challenge. They will decide on their own regarding the best course of action.

AVBucks4239 wrote:The fact that your "common knowledge" of the terms made the rules ambiguous is simply your fault. One of the first things you learn when you start studying for the LSAT is to forget the real world and treat the LSAC authors as correct--all the time. What Merriam-Webster says about "term x" and "term y" is of no use.

Word definitions are not considered "outside knowledge." If you applied your argument to the rest of the test, how would you know what any of the words mean?

Less authoritative, but dictionary.com has the following:

5.the area or region drawn on or serviced by a business or profession; outlying areas where business activities or operations are carried on, as opposed to a home or branch office: our representatives in the field.
6.a job location remote from regular workshop facilities, offices, or the like.

#5 fits what mallard says. #6 fits what I'm saying.

Dude, you can't just rely on dictionaries. Words have connotations based on context. In this case, the correct answer was definitely implied.

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 3:25 pm

#6 supports the idea "fields" as locations can be distinct. Your argument was that "field" was a general term that refers to all locations outside a home base.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18426
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 3:26 pm

d34dluk3 wrote:Dude, you can't just rely on dictionaries. Words have connotations based on context. In this case, the correct answer was definitely implied.


This is also TCR.

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 3:27 pm

d34dluk3 wrote:Dude, you can't just rely on dictionaries. Words have connotations based on context. In this case, the correct answer was definitely implied.


I agree. In this case, I'm arguing the word lacked sufficient context.

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 » Tue Jun 08, 2010 3:27 pm

citrustang wrote:#6 supports the idea "fields" as locations can be distinct. Your argument was that "field" was a general term that refers to all locations outside a home base.


Ok, what you need to do is file a challenge with LSAC and stop arguing about it here. Nothing is going to get resolved here, and I highly doubt LSAC will do anything about it. It's not like they can toss out an entire game, that would be unprecedented.

User avatar
slax
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 2:01 pm

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

Postby slax » Tue Jun 08, 2010 3:28 pm

citrustang wrote:I'm not trying to tell the LSAC what to do. I just think there are sufficient grounds for a challenge. They will decide on their own regarding the best course of action.

AVBucks4239 wrote:The fact that your "common knowledge" of the terms made the rules ambiguous is simply your fault. One of the first things you learn when you start studying for the LSAT is to forget the real world and treat the LSAC authors as correct--all the time. What Merriam-Webster says about "term x" and "term y" is of no use.

Word definitions are not considered "outside knowledge." If you applied your argument to the rest of the test, how would you know what any of the words mean?

Less authoritative, but dictionary.com has the following:

5.the area or region drawn on or serviced by a business or profession; outlying areas where business activities or operations are carried on, as opposed to a home or branch office: our representatives in the field.
6.a job location remote from regular workshop facilities, offices, or the like.

#5 fits what mallard says. #6 fits what I'm saying.


Question for someone with a better memory: Did the intro ever say that the interns would actually go to the site that the story was about? If not, #6 does not apply and neither does MW's def you posted earlier. Someone took the train to assumption town. Always a mistake on the LSAT.

3|ink wrote:
slax wrote:
It obviously IS E because Merriam Websters says that castrated's secondary definition is "always the right answer even if the rules of the game as interpreted result in another answer that must be true."

So since MW says it could be defined this way in some contexts, it is true in this context. Clearly, there is no flaw in this reasoning because it is a clear cut case of applying a general principle to an individual case.


The flaw of reasoning in the above argument is that:

a.) it confuses a sufficient condition with a necessary condition.
b.) it holds that which could be true must be true.
c.) begs the question.
d.) a and b are the same answer, and c is also committed.
e.) it makes an inappropriate appeal to authority (Michael Bay).

PS: I know (think) you were being sarcastic, Slax. Just go with it.


Hmm let me see here. By citrus' application of MW definitions (assuming he is correct), my argument seems good. It can't be b then because this is the crux of citrus' argument. A definition that could apply in some situations could also apply in this situation. So that eliminate B and D. As for A, I've never heard of those terms before so they must not apply. C: LSAT questions cannot beg because they are not humans so that must be false. Process of elimination says it's E. I will not bother to check that E is actually correct and fits the rules because I am perfect and do not make mistakes.

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 3:30 pm

citrustang wrote:#6 supports the idea "fields" as locations can be distinct. Your argument was that "field" was a general term that refers to all locations outside a home base.


No it doesn't.

User avatar
chicagobullsfan
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:42 pm

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

Postby chicagobullsfan » Tue Jun 08, 2010 3:34 pm

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.

My feeling is that OP and a few others that got caught up in the meaning of the word seriously overthought the wording in this game way too much. To me it would appear that's because of the effects of the test in general on your mental exhaustion, and if so, then it is what it is and what everyone else has to deal with.

I'd say rather than write a petition/letter, the best bet would be to hope for a nice curve (like the rest of us that struggled with this game, even after understanding the conditions properly), rather than getting this thing delayed and in the end, possibly getting it thrown out, which would not only tick everyone off, but could seriously damage the scores of everyone else (as a result of starting at a 95-96 instead of a 101, for example). Even if you got it wrong, it sounds like there are a LOT of others who may have bombed it regardless (possibly even myself!).

Just calm down and think about this instead of raving at the heavy majority of people who assumed correctly. I agree with the first poster who said it is in the interest of those who presumed correctly for you not to go for it, because it will adversely affect the majority who understood the LSAC's (fairly obvious) thinking.

PS: One of the best rules from the LGB I remember that would apply here is to not get caught up in the people, places, or situations. Just reduce everything to letters and numbers, and go from there. If you had problems with the assumptions, you overthought it. Plain and simple.
Last edited by chicagobullsfan on Tue Jun 08, 2010 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 3:39 pm

slax wrote:
3|ink wrote:
slax wrote:
It obviously IS E because Merriam Websters says that castrated's secondary definition is "always the right answer even if the rules of the game as interpreted result in another answer that must be true."

So since MW says it could be defined this way in some contexts, it is true in this context. Clearly, there is no flaw in this reasoning because it is a clear cut case of applying a general principle to an individual case.


The flaw of reasoning in the above argument is that:

a.) it confuses a sufficient condition with a necessary condition.
b.) it holds that which could be true must be true.
c.) begs the question.
d.) a and b are the same answer, and c is also committed.
e.) it makes an inappropriate appeal to authority (Michael Bay).

PS: I know (think) you were being sarcastic, Slax. Just go with it.


Hmm let me see here. By citrus' application of MW definitions (assuming he is correct), my argument seems good. It can't be b then because this is the crux of citrus' argument. A definition that could apply in some situations could also apply in this situation. So that eliminate B and D. As for A, I've never heard of those terms before so they must not apply. C: LSAT questions cannot beg because they are not humans so that must be false. Process of elimination says it's E. I will not bother to check that E is actually correct and fits the rules because I am perfect and do not make mistakes.


I never said the incorrect interpretation "must be true" because it "could be true." You are either deliberately, or unintentionally, twisting my words. All I have argued is that language that allows an incorrect interpretation to potentially be true, directly contravenes the LSAC standard that all questions must be "clear and unambiguous."

CastleRock wrote:
citrustang wrote:#6 supports the idea "fields" as locations can be distinct. Your argument was that "field" was a general term that refers to all locations outside a home base.


Ok, what you need to do is file a challenge with LSAC and stop arguing about it here. Nothing is going to get resolved here, and I highly doubt LSAC will do anything about it. It's not like they can toss out an entire game, that would be unprecedented.

I'm not looking for resolution, nor am I trying to prevail in the court of public opinion. This thread is simply meant to encourage people who noticed a similar situation to file official challenges to the LSAC.

User avatar
AVBucks4239
Posts: 870
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:37 pm

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

Postby AVBucks4239 » Tue Jun 08, 2010 3:41 pm

citrustang wrote:
d34dluk3 wrote:Dude, you can't just rely on dictionaries. Words have connotations based on context. In this case, the correct answer was definitely implied.


I agree. In this case, I'm arguing the word lacked sufficient context.

There is absolutely no way it lacked sufficient context. I've asked 4-5 people who took the test and none of them had an issue with the rule, and were surprised that somebody could even perceive such an ambiguity.

The stimulus established the context of the wording in the rules, period.

User avatar
3|ink
Posts: 7331
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

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

Postby 3|ink » Tue Jun 08, 2010 3:42 pm

citrustang wrote:I'm not looking for resolution, nor am I trying to prevail in the court of public opinion. This thread is simply meant to encourage people who noticed a similar situation to file official challenges to the LSAC.


I wonder who would adjudicate the court of public opinion.

User avatar
Xnegd
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:06 pm

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

Postby Xnegd » Tue Jun 08, 2010 3:43 pm

I completely agree with the OP here, I couldn't understand the problem to mean what they wanted it to mean. I'd never used the term as such. I was so frustrated that none of the questions were having proper answers.

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...

p.s. I filed a contest with the LSAC, Itook my time with it, so I hope they don't ignore it.
Last edited by Xnegd on Tue Jun 08, 2010 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
nattybro
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:07 pm

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

Postby nattybro » Tue Jun 08, 2010 3:43 pm

I have no stake in this, just find it curious that the OP considers it taboo to post the mystery term on the forum but had no problem posting its verbatim definition. It takes about 2 seconds to paste that definition into google and see what the term was...

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 3:49 pm

I'm just trying to follow the rules.

Son of Cicero wrote:To clarify, this prohibition does not apply solely to the direct quotation of test questions and answers. Approximations of the language used in questions/answer choices, instances of paraphrasing, and descriptions of answer patterns are all likely to draw complaints from the LSAC.

Also, if last night's thread is any indication, subsequent posts only seem to get more and more specific. By avoiding any direct mentions to the contents of the LG in question, I hope to avoid getting this thread locked.

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 3:50 pm

3|ink wrote:
citrustang wrote:I'm not looking for resolution, nor am I trying to prevail in the court of public opinion. This thread is simply meant to encourage people who noticed a similar situation to file official challenges to the LSAC.


I wonder who would adjudicate the court of public opinion.

Your guess is as good as mine. :D

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 3:54 pm

I honestly can't remember the wording of this question well enough to get into the debate. I understood the term, that didn't trip me up, but I also understand that just because I immediately understood the context doesn't necessarily mean that the question is fair by LSAC standards.

I'm going to try and be vague here, so I hope it works out. I think the biggest challenge LSAC faces is that the term is most often used in the context Citrus is suggesting in the profession used by the example. Although it didn't throw me, I understand how those familiar with that particular area of study could be drawn toward the misinterpretation.

Or, maybe there was something in the question that really did make it super clear. I can't remember, really.

akikaze
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 8:06 am

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

Postby akikaze » Tue Jun 08, 2010 3:59 pm

Can someone please PM me? I have a question relevant to this LG and need someone who thinks that they answered it correctly to clarify something...

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 4:02 pm

Out of curiosity, where was this ambiguous word? Was it in the first two rules?

Someone help me out here because I don't remember it. Maybe I made mistakes and didn't even realize it.

User avatar
3|ink
Posts: 7331
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

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

Postby 3|ink » Tue Jun 08, 2010 4:04 pm

rklafehn wrote:Out of curiosity, where was this ambiguous word? Was it in the first two rules?

Someone help me out here because I don't remember it. Maybe I made mistakes and didn't even realize it.


Don't worry. If you didn't notice it, you probably did fine. Most people who claim to have completed the game claim that they didn't see any potentially ambiguous words.

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 4:05 pm

Are we allowed to PM any more specific info?

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 4:11 pm

chicagobullsfan wrote:I'd say rather than write a petition/letter, the best bet would be to hope for a nice curve (like the rest of us that struggled with this game, even after understanding the conditions properly), rather than getting this thing delayed and in the end, possibly getting it thrown out, which would not only tick everyone off, but could seriously damage the scores of everyone else (as a result of starting at a 95-96 instead of a 101, for example). Even if you got it wrong, it sounds like there are a LOT of others who may have bombed it regardless (possibly even myself!).

I recognized my mistake and had enough time to go back and finish the game correctly. I am not attempting to assuage any hurt pride here. This is a matter of principle. Whether I will personally benefit from it or not has no bearing on the validity of this particular challenge. But for every person like me who realized their mistake early enough, there are many other people who realized much too late or never realized at all. Those people did not get a fair shake at answering the questions correctly, and for that reason alone, a review should be necessary.

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 4:13 pm

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

schnoodle
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 7:57 am

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

Postby schnoodle » Tue Jun 08, 2010 4:20 pm

not having taken the test, it seems that this mystery word is discernible if you read for context and make an inference. isn't that exactly the type of skill you would need in law school? if you can't hack it during a logic game, you should not broadcast it to the TLS world or to the LSAC. bite the bullet. if you blew it, you blew it.

and citrus, i find it hard to believe you'd be going to this much trouble if you hadn't lost points over this.

sca218ml
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 7:58 pm

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

Postby sca218ml » Tue Jun 08, 2010 4:26 pm

I took the test and did not think twice about the "ambiguity".

My problem with this crusade is that it gives people who missed this game for legitimate reasons (not enough time/didn't get the one big deduction) a reason to complain to LSAC and seemingly have a "legitimate" excuse for missing the game.

I personally don't think this complaint is legitimate. 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?).




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests