LR WAS INSANE

User avatar
Adjudicator
Posts: 1108
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:18 am

Re: LR WAS INSANE

Postby Adjudicator » Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:24 pm

Indeed, there was a red herring in the "rule of law" question, and as soon as you realize that, the answer is pretty obvious.

Hedwig
Posts: 835
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:56 am

Re: LR WAS INSANE

Postby Hedwig » Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:31 pm

Adjudicator wrote:Indeed, there was a red herring in the "rule of law" question, and as soon as you realize that, the answer is pretty obvious.


This is the question that made me so upset!

I don't think I got the right answer in the end, but initially I fell for the "red herring" answer. Then I was like WAIT A GOSH DARN MINUTE, DOES THIS REALLY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING OR ARE THEY PLAYING OFF MY LRB SKILLZ THAT TELL ME TO DO THIS AND THAT WHEN THIS AND THAT IN THIS QUESTION ARE IRRELEVANT? I GUESS SO! DAMN IT! WHAT DO I CHOOSE?

So I chose an answer, don't even REMEMBER the answer, and then was like "WAIT MAYBE I OVERTHOUGHT THAT MAYBE IT IS THE RIGHT ANSWER AND NOT IRRELEVANT... -" and time was called.

User avatar
skers
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:33 am

Re: LR WAS INSANE

Postby skers » Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:47 pm

eit wrote:
Adjudicator wrote:Indeed, there was a red herring in the "rule of law" question, and as soon as you realize that, the answer is pretty obvious.


This is the question that made me so upset!

I don't think I got the right answer in the end, but initially I fell for the "red herring" answer. Then I was like WAIT A GOSH DARN MINUTE, DOES THIS REALLY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING OR ARE THEY PLAYING OFF MY LRB SKILLZ THAT TELL ME TO DO THIS AND THAT WHEN THIS AND THAT IN THIS QUESTION ARE IRRELEVANT? I GUESS SO! DAMN IT! WHAT DO I CHOOSE?

So I chose an answer, don't even REMEMBER the answer, and then was like "WAIT MAYBE I OVERTHOUGHT THAT MAYBE IT IS THE RIGHT ANSWER AND NOT IRRELEVANT... -" and time was called.



I think this is the a new trend with the last five or so LSATs. They seem to be really gunning to mess up LRB kids. This especially seems to be the case with sufficient/necessary assumption questions with tricky tricky fucking trap answers that have all those characteristics we've learned to look for.

User avatar
KevinP
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:56 pm

Re: LR WAS INSANE

Postby KevinP » Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:57 pm

I've definitely noticed that LSAC is screwing with those of us who prepared. I remember on a recent preptest, I read about a lawyer making an argument and my mind immediately thought the question was find a flaw in the reasoning but it turned out to be a justify question. To realign my thinking cost me about 20 seconds.

jd20132013
Posts: 997
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: LR WAS INSANE

Postby jd20132013 » Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:15 pm

I can't wait to go into more detail on the sufficient/necessary assumption when we get the scores back

I think anyone who remembers the question that used that knows why the way it was used was unusual.

jd20132013
Posts: 997
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: LR WAS INSANE

Postby jd20132013 » Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:17 pm

I'm cool with them deciding to fuck more with ppl on LR because I'm good at those naturally, and the preparation just helped me in adjusting to the twists


on LG, not so much, even though the LG pros hereswear it was easy.

HeavenWood
Posts: 2915
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:42 pm

Re: LR WAS INSANE

Postby HeavenWood » Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:08 pm

I found one LR to be more difficult and the other to be somewhat easy. Incidentally, I thought RC was a cakewalk. Those games, however.... I didn't even get to look at four questions.

I'm predicting/hoping/praying for a curve similar to the June test.

User avatar
Lasers
Posts: 1576
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 6:46 pm

Re: LR WAS INSANE

Postby Lasers » Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:46 pm

those saying this oct test was super easy jumped the gun.

the LR was extremely tricky, i remember having so many coin flip answers. also, the stimulus seemed exceedingly long in general. LR was definitely harder than june 2010.

Sandro
Posts: 2526
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:12 am

Re: LR WAS INSANE

Postby Sandro » Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:54 pm

Lasers wrote:those saying this oct test was super easy jumped the gun.

the LR was extremely tricky, i remember having so many coin flip answers. also, the stimulus seemed exceedingly long in general. LR was definitely harder than june 2010.


Besides 1 or 2 pretty hard ones, there were def some that while I thought I was sure I got the right answer, would not be surprised at all if it wasnt. I dont see how anyone can say this test was easier than a -10.

Hedwig
Posts: 835
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:56 am

Re: LR WAS INSANE

Postby Hedwig » Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:55 pm

Here's the thing. If I hadn't read the LRB, I wouldn't have wanted to go for that trick answer (if it was a trick answer, who knows). But if I hadn't read the LRB, I would have had no freaking clue how to approach that question, how to diagram, etc.

Even if I get that question wrong, though, I can at least comfort myself that I didn't fall for their stupid trick.

User avatar
Lasers
Posts: 1576
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 6:46 pm

Re: LR WAS INSANE

Postby Lasers » Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:57 pm

Sandro777 wrote:
Lasers wrote:those saying this oct test was super easy jumped the gun.

the LR was extremely tricky, i remember having so many coin flip answers. also, the stimulus seemed exceedingly long in general. LR was definitely harder than june 2010.


Besides 1 or 2 pretty hard ones, there were def some that while I thought I was sure I got the right answer, would not be surprised at all if it wasnt. I dont see how anyone can say this test was easier than a -10.

exactly. i feel the exact same way.

i would choose an answer with reasonable confidence, but i rarely had choices i thought were 100% correct, which i usually had with most of the PT's. i would not be surprised to see many of those choices ended up being wrong.

Sandro
Posts: 2526
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:12 am

Re: LR WAS INSANE

Postby Sandro » Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:03 pm

eit wrote:Here's the thing. If I hadn't read the LRB, I wouldn't have wanted to go for that trick answer (if it was a trick answer, who knows). But if I hadn't read the LRB, I would have had no freaking clue how to approach that question, how to diagram, etc.

Even if I get that question wrong, though, I can at least comfort myself that I didn't fall for their stupid trick.


Are you guys talking about the question that had a stock answer that seemed attractive because of its LRB language but didnt really address the stimulus exactly?

User avatar
Blumpbeef
Posts: 3814
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: LR WAS INSANE

Postby Blumpbeef » Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:08 pm

I always get about 45-50 and I think I did worse on PT61 than on almost any other. Even PT59 was just a -6 for me I believe, and this one was worse.

I also didn't fill in the bubble for one of the answers. I got cocky and assumed I would finish 2-5 minutes early like I always do, but I actually ran out of time on both sections, and the lack of 30 second warning meant I had no chance to fill out my test.

NJcollegestudent
Posts: 490
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 5:12 pm

Re: LR WAS INSANE

Postby NJcollegestudent » Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:12 pm

I honestly did not think that the LR was that hard, it seemed easier than the PT's.

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

Re: LR WAS INSANE

Postby DrackedaryMaster » Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:14 pm

eit wrote:Here's the thing. If I hadn't read the LRB, I wouldn't have wanted to go for that trick answer (if it was a trick answer, who knows). But if I hadn't read the LRB, I would have had no freaking clue how to approach that question, how to diagram, etc.

Even if I get that question wrong, though, I can at least comfort myself that I didn't fall for their stupid trick.



Now I'm scared on this Rule of Law Question. I thought this is one I might have picked off which I would normally get wrong. I remember two answer choices sticking out with me. Almost went with one of them, then looked again and felt certain it was the other. I don't know though. Without getting into any specifics, this question reminded me of a similar one I got fooled by on a recent PT (won't mention that PT/question# for fear of banishment). But I used that knowledge from there (maybe wrongly) to answer what I thought it had to be. If I missed it, no big deal, because I'd chalk this one up to the brick house, EKG, car theft (read failure), and hiring question(wtf), that I would normally miss on a regular PT anyway.

User avatar
Blumpbeef
Posts: 3814
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: LR WAS INSANE

Postby Blumpbeef » Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:28 pm

This rule of law question, was it the one that had to do with good will or something?

User avatar
AreJay711
Posts: 3406
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:51 pm

Re: LR WAS INSANE

Postby AreJay711 » Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:49 pm

I think I got the tricky ones right except for car thieves. I think LSAC is trying to make the sections harder so there are fewer 101 raw scores. I mean I'm really good at LR (usually -0 or -1) and I was challenged by some of these questions -- If I was as good at LG as I was at LR I'd be shooting for a 180. Look at PT60 and it was the same thing: the highest raw score was 99 (with one not scored). The LG were normal but time consuming which will overall lead to lower score for many people. On PT60 I got 174 because I usually miss a few LG anyway. I think PT61 will be a good test for people who typically do well on LG and don't do well on LR or RC

sarahlawg
Posts: 1001
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 5:59 pm

Re: LR WAS INSANE

Postby sarahlawg » Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:51 pm

so glad to hear the info on rule of law. I kept looking at my diagrams thinking do I even need that one??? finally I think I picked the right answer. That extra piece also threw me off on what exactly the conclusion was.

Tainted_Praise
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:20 pm

Re: LR WAS INSANE

Postby Tainted_Praise » Sun Oct 10, 2010 4:09 pm

Yeah.... I thought the LR was super hard for some reason too. Usually I get like 40/50.... Maybe 43/50 on a good day. But I'm pretty sure that the first section of LR I had was experimental... Thank God. Because I had to get used to that annoying proctor walking around the room dragging her feet. Proctors are so annoying. I think they should just sit in the front of the classroom.... Is it seriously necessary to walk around dragging your feet?

User avatar
Adjudicator
Posts: 1108
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:18 am

Re: LR WAS INSANE

Postby Adjudicator » Sun Oct 10, 2010 4:10 pm

dhrizek wrote:This rule of law question, was it the one that had to do with good will or something?


The "good life?" :)

Tainted_Praise
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:20 pm

Re: LR WAS INSANE

Postby Tainted_Praise » Sun Oct 10, 2010 4:11 pm

AreJay711 wrote:I think I got the tricky ones right except for car thieves. I think LSAC is trying to make the sections harder so there are fewer 101 raw scores. I mean I'm really good at LR (usually -0 or -1) and I was challenged by some of these questions -- If I was as good at LG as I was at LR I'd be shooting for a 180. Look at PT60 and it was the same thing: the highest raw score was 99 (with one not scored). The LG were normal but time consuming which will overall lead to lower score for many people. On PT60 I got 174 because I usually miss a few LG anyway. I think PT61 will be a good test for people who typically do well on LG and don't do well on LR or RC



I definitely agree with you on this.... I actually thought they were easy to normal..... But yeah. Time consuming.

kilgoretrout103
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:34 pm

Re: LR WAS INSANE

Postby kilgoretrout103 » Sun Oct 10, 2010 4:21 pm

I DEFINITELY think LSAC bucked the trend and pushed LR instead of LG on this test.

Since the infamous dinosaur game on June '09 (I think), LG has consistently been the hardest section on the test. But this time, the LG were relatively tame (only one true hybrid, and it wasn't even that complicated...), but many, many LR questions were incredibility difficult or completely original.

Off the top of my head, I can think of the the cooking "analogy" and the rule of law formal logic as questions that introduced completely new elements to logical reasoning. (The first one was a new question stem....I guess I would classify it as a Principle Application question. The second one had a completely unnecessary premise in the stimulus. I don't that's EVER happened before).

I can also think of the car paradox, the thermodynamic steel/electricity strenghten question, and the Shakespeare actor question as unusually difficult examples. I think they all appeared in the same section, even!

On the whole, this was a weird, weird test.

pdk
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 4:47 pm

Re: LR WAS INSANE

Postby pdk » Sun Oct 10, 2010 4:51 pm

Can anyone confirm whether or not the section starting with "right/ no right for biz owner to shut off the factory" the real section?

tazmolover
Posts: 306
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:37 pm

Re: LR WAS INSANE

Postby tazmolover » Sun Oct 10, 2010 4:52 pm

pdk wrote:Can anyone confirm whether or not the section starting with "right/ no right for biz owner to shut off the factory" the real section?

real

Sandro
Posts: 2526
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:12 am

Re: LR WAS INSANE

Postby Sandro » Sun Oct 10, 2010 5:24 pm

this LR was had, but I can only imagine how much harder it would have been had I not done 20+ PTs and mastered the LRB.... i think a lot of ppl will miss a lot more on LR than usual.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests