61's LG wasn't easy...

JurisDoctorate
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:22 am

61's LG wasn't easy...

Postby JurisDoctorate » Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:38 pm

There seems to be a great deal of people who say they struggled on it and some who say this was much easier than 60. Well, the second group TOOK 60. Of course they are going to think 61 was easier, they already took an official LG. Many of the people who struggled did so because it was their first LG. I would say very few people retake it, overall, and many people did poor on it. If there are a ton of us who thought they had it pretty down cold, yet thought these were difficult - then most people are probably in the same boat.

I just don't think the opinions all of these people, who were retaking on Saturday, counts for a whole lot. I think it was difficult, I think this new crowd of people were taking it for the first time and recent trends suggest that there'll be a big ole curve. It won't do me a whole lot of good, but I think it's ridiculous to accept it as easy as just a select few felt that way.

User avatar
WonkyPanda
Posts: 346
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:35 pm

Re: 61's LG wasn't easy...

Postby WonkyPanda » Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:39 pm

You're preaching to the choir, man. This is TOP LAW SCHOOLS. We're all elitist and a terrible representative sample of the actual testing population.

smithryan94
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 9:40 pm

Re: 61's LG wasn't easy...

Postby smithryan94 » Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:42 pm

I agree. I was basically -0/-1 on my last 8 PTs. And though the artifact questions weren't necessarily "hard" they were extremely time-consuming with all the hypos, thus I doubt we'll see many 23/23s.

User avatar
rso11
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:25 pm

Re: 61's LG wasn't easy...

Postby rso11 » Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:46 pm

WonkyPanda wrote:You're preaching to the choir, man. This is TOP LAW SCHOOLS. We're all elitist and a terrible representative sample of the actual testing population.


+1

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

Re: 61's LG wasn't easy...

Postby AreJay711 » Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:47 pm

Some people are better at some LGs than others. I'm uncertain how well I did but I think PT60 was easier but that could just be I didn't finish the section on this test. Maybe I got every single other question right on that section (At least I thought that when I was doing them). People won't know until they see their scores though.

kpuc
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:28 pm

Re: 61's LG wasn't easy...

Postby kpuc » Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:51 pm

smithryan94 wrote:I agree. I was basically -0/-1 on my last 8 PTs. And though the artifact questions weren't necessarily "hard" they were extremely time-consuming with all the hypos, thus I doubt we'll see many 23/23s.


Both Artifacts and Nurses lacked permanent rules and required more hypos than usual. They were conceptually simple yet difficult due to their open-endedness.

smithryan94
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 9:40 pm

Re: 61's LG wasn't easy...

Postby smithryan94 » Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:51 pm

smithryan94 wrote:I agree. I was basically -0/-1 on my last 8 PTs. And though the artifact questions weren't necessarily "hard" they were extremely time-consuming with all the hypos, thus I doubt we'll see many 23/23s.


this being said, i do think June's LG section was "harder" or perhaps "more unusual" then Octobers. But that may not be reflected in the scoring distribution because I bet there were more perfect sections from the top 3-5% who were able to figure it out.

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

Re: 61's LG wasn't easy...

Postby tazmolover » Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:51 pm

kpuc wrote:
smithryan94 wrote:I agree. I was basically -0/-1 on my last 8 PTs. And though the artifact questions weren't necessarily "hard" they were extremely time-consuming with all the hypos, thus I doubt we'll see many 23/23s.


Both Artifacts and Nurses lacked permanent rules and required more hypos than usual. They were conceptually simple yet difficult due to their open-endedness.


This sums up the entire 61's LG.

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

Re: 61's LG wasn't easy...

Postby Sandro » Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:53 pm

tazmolover wrote:
kpuc wrote:
smithryan94 wrote:I agree. I was basically -0/-1 on my last 8 PTs. And though the artifact questions weren't necessarily "hard" they were extremely time-consuming with all the hypos, thus I doubt we'll see many 23/23s.


Both Artifacts and Nurses lacked permanent rules and required more hypos than usual. They were conceptually simple yet difficult due to their open-endedness.


This sums up the entire 61's LG.


werd. I didnt have problems with any of the rules but there were so many hypos for each game, you couldnt just say "Oh this XX block is very crucial" because there usually were 8 other possibilities. This took time and opened me up to instances where maybe I didnt do enough hypos to get the right answer. We will see, but I feel better that I got to all but 2 questions - usually when I bomb is when I have to guess on 4+

smithryan94
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 9:40 pm

Re: 61's LG wasn't easy...

Postby smithryan94 » Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:54 pm

another way to put it: with an extra 3 minutes on the October LG section, tons of scores would've jumped up; but i'm not sure that a few extra mintues on the June LG section would've yielded a ton of higher scores

jarofsoup
Posts: 1952
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 2:41 am

Re: 61's LG wasn't easy...

Postby jarofsoup » Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:54 pm

60 was hell of a lot harder. I got my nerves out on the expiremental. Its the adrenaline. You don't have the clarity on game day.

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

Re: 61's LG wasn't easy...

Postby tazmolover » Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:55 pm

smithryan94 wrote:another way to put it: with an extra 3 minutes on the October LG section, tons of scores would've jumped up; but i'm not sure that a few extra mintues on the June LG section would've yielded a ton of higher scores


Curve doesn't care whether you miss the question because it was difficult conceptually or because there were 5 hypos that you had to make to check the answer...

smithryan94
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 9:40 pm

Re: 61's LG wasn't easy...

Postby smithryan94 » Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:57 pm

tazmolover wrote:
smithryan94 wrote:another way to put it: with an extra 3 minutes on the October LG section, tons of scores would've jumped up; but i'm not sure that a few extra mintues on the June LG section would've yielded a ton of higher scores


Curve doesn't care whether you miss the question because it was difficult conceptually or because there were 5 hypos that you had to make to check the answer...


exactly my point. even though the two sections were different in concept and difficulty, they will probably yield essentially the same scores.

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

Re: 61's LG wasn't easy...

Postby tazmolover » Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:58 pm

smithryan94 wrote:
tazmolover wrote:
smithryan94 wrote:another way to put it: with an extra 3 minutes on the October LG section, tons of scores would've jumped up; but i'm not sure that a few extra mintues on the June LG section would've yielded a ton of higher scores


Curve doesn't care whether you miss the question because it was difficult conceptually or because there were 5 hypos that you had to make to check the answer...


exactly my point. even though the two sections were different in concept and difficulty, they will probably yield essentially the same scores.


One thing is usually when it's conceptually difficult it's more of an ALL OR NOTHING situation where you get the inference and ace the entire LG or you miss it and miss everything.

With a lot of choices, even if you mess up you still answer a few questions correctly.

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

Re: 61's LG wasn't easy...

Postby KevinP » Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:00 pm

tazmolover wrote:
smithryan94 wrote:
tazmolover wrote:
smithryan94 wrote:another way to put it: with an extra 3 minutes on the October LG section, tons of scores would've jumped up; but i'm not sure that a few extra mintues on the June LG section would've yielded a ton of higher scores


Curve doesn't care whether you miss the question because it was difficult conceptually or because there were 5 hypos that you had to make to check the answer...


exactly my point. even though the two sections were different in concept and difficulty, they will probably yield essentially the same scores.


One thing is usually when it's conceptually difficult it's more of an ALL OR NOTHING situation where you get the inference and ace the entire LG or you miss it and miss everything.

With a lot of choices, even if you mess up you still answer a few questions correctly.


This used to be the case with very old LGs. If you didn't make a crucial inference, you were screwed. Newer ones are more of a hybrid. I really wish we would return to older type LGs and more generous curves... I really liked those ;/

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

Re: 61's LG wasn't easy...

Postby tazmolover » Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:02 pm


With a lot of choices, even if you mess up you still answer a few questions correctly.


This used to be the case with very old LGs. If you didn't make a crucial inference, you were screwed. Newer ones are more of a hybrid. I really wish we would return to older type LGs and more generous curves... I really liked those ;/[/quote]

Haha yeh. Just as long as it's not like snakes+lizards.

User avatar
BackToTheOldHouse
Posts: 862
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:03 pm

Re: 61's LG wasn't easy...

Postby BackToTheOldHouse » Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:07 pm

tazmolover wrote:
kpuc wrote:
smithryan94 wrote:I agree. I was basically -0/-1 on my last 8 PTs. And though the artifact questions weren't necessarily "hard" they were extremely time-consuming with all the hypos, thus I doubt we'll see many 23/23s.


Both Artifacts and Nurses lacked permanent rules and required more hypos than usual. They were conceptually simple yet difficult due to their open-endedness.


This sums up the entire 61's LG.


Totally agree.

JurisDoctorate
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:22 am

Re: 61's LG wasn't easy...

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

So, after reviewing all of the arguments, the better way of articulating it would be:

"There is no, sufficient, reason to believe that scores on 61's LG were any higher than 60's. Therefore, the arguments that this curve will be tighter - due to 61's "less difficult" LG section - are invalid."

Sound about right.

User avatar
kkklick
Posts: 1021
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 8:33 pm

Re: 61's LG wasn't easy...

Postby kkklick » Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:13 pm

I absolutely killed the games this time, or so I thought, turns out I messed up on the very first one getting about 3 wrong most likely out of the 5. Sucks considering I was scoring -1/0 like a lot of other ppl, then I could guarantee my 165, but at this point I'm at the mercy of LSAC. Gonna stay off the forums for now as reading everyone elses comments is making me more nervous and wearing on my patience tremendously.

JurisDoctorate
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:22 am

Re: 61's LG wasn't easy...

Postby JurisDoctorate » Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:16 pm

kkklick, experiences like yours are exactly what I'm talking about. It seems like there are several of us for everyone who said they killed it. And most of them admitted, later, that were so many hypo's required that it was challenging and they could have made mistakes. If, even, the outliers found it challenging - it was and the curve will reflect that.

User avatar
kkklick
Posts: 1021
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 8:33 pm

Re: 61's LG wasn't easy...

Postby kkklick » Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:19 pm

Right, I actually was 99% sure of the other 3 games, the hyps didnt bother me, I just misinterpreted a sentence in the first game about the cars (min 2) didn't know all 6 HAD to go in the car. Looking back, the supidest error I've made on the total of 40 tests I did. Im hoping for a -12 curve like june I think thats fair. If I see a -9 like Oct 08 I will definately be writing in December just to get the advantage of the easier curve plus I already graduated so I won't have exams during that time.

jjlaw
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:43 pm

Re: 61's LG wasn't easy...

Postby jjlaw » Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:30 pm

I had two LG sections, so I might be remembering wrong. The second game seemed pretty straight forward for me. I can't remember if that was the artifacts game, but two of the items had to be in one spot or another, which restricted a lot of the other variables.

The tracks game was a little harder, but once you made the deductions about S and R, it seemed pretty straightforward.

I think there was also a sequencing game with a replacement rule question Can't remember if that was the artifacts game, but I made a major deduction about one item either coming before or after two other items, and the answers just jumped off the page.

The only game I had trouble on was the cars/driver game, which I'm pretty sure I missed 1 because I changed the answer at the last minute but wasn't 100% sure.

User avatar
kkklick
Posts: 1021
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 8:33 pm

Re: 61's LG wasn't easy...

Postby kkklick » Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:31 pm

jjlaw wrote:I had two LG sections, so I might be remembering wrong. The second game seemed pretty straight forward for me. I can't remember if that was the artifacts game, but two of the items had to be in one spot or another, which restricted a lot of the other variables.

The tracks game was a little harder, but once you made the deductions about S and R, it seemed pretty straightforward.

I think there was also a sequencing game with a replacement rule question Can't remember if that was the artifacts game, but I made a major deduction about one item either coming before or after two other items, and the answers just jumped off the page.

The only game I had trouble on was the cars/driver game, which I'm pretty sure I missed 1 because I changed the answer at the last minute but wasn't 100% sure.


Describes exactly how mine went except i missed 3 on drivers. Damn it wasn't even that hard and I had extra time thats what is bothering me

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

Re: 61's LG wasn't easy...

Postby AreJay711 » Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:43 pm

kkklick wrote:Right, I actually was 99% sure of the other 3 games, the hyps didnt bother me, I just misinterpreted a sentence in the first game about the cars (min 2) didn't know all 6 HAD to go in the car. Looking back, the supidest error I've made on the total of 40 tests I did. Im hoping for a -12 curve like june I think thats fair. If I see a -9 like Oct 08 I will definately be writing in December just to get the advantage of the easier curve plus I already graduated so I won't have exams during that time.


June had a question knocked out which is one of the reasons it had such a generous curve. Also the highest ANYONE scored on 60 was 99. I think it is more likely -10 or maybe if that question is dropped then -11. I doubt NO ONE got all of 61 correct even if the time consuming aspect made many people's score lower. I guess the highest score bands could just be really big but idk

BeachedBrit
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:30 am

Re: 61's LG wasn't easy...

Postby BeachedBrit » Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:45 pm

First time taking the LSAT, I thought the real LG section was a total breeze. Funnily enough I thought I had LG down to a sure -0 until I did PT's 59 and 60 at the start of the week and didn't even finish the games. Luckily some tips from LSATBlog combined with doing each of those games twice paid off for me. What type of game was artifacts? (if we're allowed to say, if not ignore me) I remember vaguely the topics and what concepts were tested but not which concepts were on each game other than runners in lanes




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dan9257 and 4 guests