What's the deal with the random sadistic sections

User avatar
Anaconda
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm

What's the deal with the random sadistic sections

Postby Anaconda » Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:13 pm

Looking at the Kaplan Q ratings, here are some sections that appear to be insane based on the question ratings:

LG on PT 41 - 1st game is easy but on the next 3 games: 11 4 star questions and 5 3 star questions.

LR Section 3 PT 43 - Questions 17-25 are all 4 stars.

LR Section 1 on PT 50 - 18/25 questions are 4 or 3 star difficulty and 7 out of the first 11 questions are 4 stars

Whats the deal with these? Why are some random sections so difficult? The thought of the LR section on PT 50 consisting of almost nothing but difficult questions makes me want to vomit.

User avatar
Anaconda
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm

Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections

Postby Anaconda » Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:17 pm

Also for comparison to put this in perspective:

On SuperPrep A - there are 3 4 star questions TOTAL out of the 2 LR sections, including one section that didn't even have a 4 star question. Hmmm... I don't really like how the test seemingly has wide fluctuations in difficulty.

User avatar
DrackedaryMaster
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 5:11 pm

Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections

Postby DrackedaryMaster » Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:29 pm

PT 50, that was Sep 2006, right? Oh how I remember that well. I had finished the GMAT with a high verbal and thought the LSAT "reasoning" and RC sections would be comparable (lol). That RC section alone is probably the worst I've ever done on an RC section...ever, courtesy to the insane 4th science passage. The LR sections were a disaster. It has been years since I've looked at that mess. I'm planning to attack it around the early part of September.

But yeah, I share your amazement with the wild difficulty swings. Especially if I remember, that test had only a -10 curve, even with all of the 4 stars.

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections

Postby d34d9823 » Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:30 pm

Overall tests are equated, not the specific sections. LSAC likes to make one section especially hard. See: June '10 LG, PT 59 RC.

User avatar
Anaconda
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm

Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections

Postby Anaconda » Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:32 pm

Yeah, 10 point curve. What the HELL? It's not fair to give test-takers such a ridiculous section with that many hard questions, but I'm guessing people beat the adversity since the curve was so small?

User avatar
Anaconda
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm

Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections

Postby Anaconda » Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:00 am

d34dluk3 wrote:Overall tests are equated, not the specific sections. LSAC likes to make one section especially hard. See: June '10 LG, PT 59 RC.

You're severely mistaken.

Comparisons:

PT 14: 40 1 Star, 34 2 Star, 13 3 Star 14 4 Star = 74 "easy" questions
PT 41: 30 1 star, 30 2 Star, 20 3 Star, 22 4 Star = 60 "easy" questions
PT 50: 26 1 Star, 26 2 Star, 23 3 Star, 23 4 Star = 52 "easy"questions

Both curves for these tests were -10
Last edited by Anaconda on Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Always Credited
Posts: 2509
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:31 pm

Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections

Postby Always Credited » Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:03 am

Anaconda wrote:
d34dluk3 wrote:Overall tests are equated, not the specific sections. LSAC likes to make one section especially hard. See: June '10 LG, PT 59 RC.

You're severely mistaken.

Comparisons:

PT 14: 40 1 Star, 34 2 Star, 13 3 Star 14 4 Star
PT 50: 26 1 Star, 26 2 Star, 23 3 Star, 23 4 Star

Both curves for these tests were -10


You're comparing tests from different decades.

dabbadon8
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 2:17 am

Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections

Postby dabbadon8 » Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:06 am

d34dluk3 wrote:Overall tests are equated, not the specific sections. LSAC likes to make one section especially hard. See: June '10 LG, PT 59 RC.



I actually thought June 10' lg was relatively easy with the exception of the intern game. That intern game was a hard one though.

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections

Postby d34d9823 » Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:07 am

dabbadon8 wrote:
d34dluk3 wrote:Overall tests are equated, not the specific sections. LSAC likes to make one section especially hard. See: June '10 LG, PT 59 RC.



I actually thought June 10' lg was relatively easy with the exception of the intern game. That intern game was a hard one though.

The -12 curve with medium LR and fluff RC says everything about that test.

Interns was one of the hardest games I've seen, mulch threw people as well.

User avatar
Anaconda
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm

Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections

Postby Anaconda » Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:08 am

Always Credited wrote:
Anaconda wrote:
d34dluk3 wrote:Overall tests are equated, not the specific sections. LSAC likes to make one section especially hard. See: June '10 LG, PT 59 RC.

You're severely mistaken.

Comparisons:

PT 14: 40 1 Star, 34 2 Star, 13 3 Star 14 4 Star
PT 50: 26 1 Star, 26 2 Star, 23 3 Star, 23 4 Star

Both curves for these tests were -10


You're comparing tests from different decades.


Added PT 41.

dabbadon8
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 2:17 am

Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections

Postby dabbadon8 » Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:16 am

d34dluk3 wrote:
dabbadon8 wrote:
d34dluk3 wrote:Overall tests are equated, not the specific sections. LSAC likes to make one section especially hard. See: June '10 LG, PT 59 RC.



I actually thought June 10' lg was relatively easy with the exception of the intern game. That intern game was a hard one though.

The -12 curve with medium LR and fluff RC says everything about that test.

Interns was one of the hardest games I've seen, mulch threw people as well.


I don't know about that, one of the LR sections was pretty tough, the one with the underground rock band q, and the reading comp was long if not particularly tough.

I thought the mulch games was possibly the easiest game I have seen but I could see how it could throw people off if they over thought it.

Curve was very generous though.

User avatar
kazu
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:35 pm

Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections

Postby kazu » Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:17 am

d34dluk3 wrote:Overall tests are equated, not the specific sections. LSAC likes to make one section especially hard. See: June '10 LG, PT 59 RC.


I really think the bolded is true though.


Besides, maybe Kaplan's rating system doesn't necessarily equal LSAC's internal system. Does Kaplan have info regarding the percentage of people who got individual Qs right - info that LSAC would obviously have?

User avatar
Anaconda
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm

Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections

Postby Anaconda » Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:45 am

WELL... I just couldn't resist looking over a few of the 4 stars on PT 50, and I must say not all 4 stars are created equal. Some of the 4 stars on PT 50 are easier than some of the 2 stars on earlier PTs, and that's coming from someone that sucks at LR!!!

Actually, I'll go ahead and say the first five 4 star questions on PT 50 were EASY compared to any other 4 stars I've ever seen on Pt 1-38. I got them all right without breaking a sweat. Hope this is a trend and not an anomaly, because LR on the earlier PTs really trip me up with the nit-picky details and tough language. :D

User avatar
Anaconda
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm

Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections

Postby Anaconda » Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:51 am

kazu wrote:
d34dluk3 wrote:Overall tests are equated, not the specific sections. LSAC likes to make one section especially hard. See: June '10 LG, PT 59 RC.


I really think the bolded is true though.


Besides, maybe Kaplan's rating system doesn't necessarily equal LSAC's internal system. Does Kaplan have info regarding the percentage of people who got individual Qs right - info that LSAC would obviously have?



I think you're absolutely right - as I wrote by my previous post. Seriously, the right answers based on the small sample I took weren't even debatable, I would consider them gimmes.

However, I'm sure Kaplan does have the right vs wrong stats, powerscore certainly has them. It's really weird though, maybe Kaplan's rating system is just off. It does seem bizarre that this particular LR section on 50 would be considered so hard, I'm sure it would HAVE to affect the curve, since that would be tantamount to kids missing at least 4 or 5 more questions they'd usually have. There also hasn't been that much change between raw scores -> lsat scores over the past 2 decades so the questions couldn't really be that much harder.

rklafehn
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 6:59 pm

Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections

Postby rklafehn » Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:57 am

June '10:

"fluff" RC = - 7
"hard" LG = -1 (on game #1; aka not the mulch or interns)

Everything is relative...

dabbadon8
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 2:17 am

Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections

Postby dabbadon8 » Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:24 am

rklafehn wrote:June '10:

"fluff" RC = - 7
"hard" LG = -1 (on game #1; aka not the mulch or interns)

Everything is relative...


I had a similar experience

RC=-4
LG=-1 on interns

nickbentley
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:21 pm

Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections

Postby nickbentley » Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:18 pm

dabbadon8 wrote:
rklafehn wrote:June '10:

"fluff" RC = - 7
"hard" LG = -1 (on game #1; aka not the mulch or interns)

Everything is relative...


I had a similar experience

RC=-4
LG=-1 on interns



Ya PT50 is difficult. Hell..




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexandros, Baidu [Spider], CHyde, Google [Bot], wildquest8200 and 9 guests