Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?

lieg
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:50 am

Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?

Postby lieg » Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:47 pm

I apologize if any part of this is redundant. but I keep getting conflicting answers from a lot of the posts. Maybe this will help?
My exam:

1 - LR: Very difficult with some strange questions stems. Very different feel from most PT's. Not sure I remember any q's.
2- LR: Definitely much easier
3- RC: (real) - African American/ historical writing, animal communication, UN human rights, etc.
4- LR: Easier again
5- LG: (real) - artifacts, van +drivers, running a race, etc.

The most confusion I have seen has been figuring out which LR is experimental. People have been claiming that sections containing Kofka, alcohol drinking, soaking beans have been real. I had three LR's and did not have any of these questions. I am fairly certain on that. Someone did raise a point that it is possible that 2 different experimentals existed, and further, that even tests with the same layout had the experimental at a different time. I tend to this this is possible, and would certainly explain the difficulty in figuring this out.

I do remember these LR questions, more than likely from the last 2 sections: Antibiotics/Chef analogy, College presidents, car theft, earthworms, spotted fish, time devoted to recreation/psychologist, liberty/freedom/goodlife, etc.

I assume that the 4th LR was real, and I believe it had 25 ques. and I also believe my second LR had 26. It appears that the test ended up with a 26 and 25 LR, so if I am not incorrect by this logic (which i am hoping!) if you had the same sequence as me the first LR was experimental.

PLEASE SHARE THOUGHTS/INPUT!

User avatar
DearCan
Posts: 302
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:13 am

Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?

Postby DearCan » Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:51 pm

My experimental section was LG.

I did not have a question about soaking beans or Kafka.

User avatar
minnbills
Posts: 3153
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?

Postby minnbills » Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:51 pm

I had:

RC (real)
LR (25) easy
LR (25) super hard... every stimulus seemed really long. Lots of complex questions.
LG
LR easy

Unfortunately I don't remember where any specific questions were for LR.

sidhesadie
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?

Postby sidhesadie » Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:58 pm

I had the same as minnbills, but I don't remember which questions were in which sections. I thought the first LR was SUPER easy. I actually had time to go to the bathroom when I was done. the second and third were harder, but I still thought they were really easy. I have no idea which was experimental.

User avatar
Patriot1208
Posts: 7044
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:28 am

Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?

Postby Patriot1208 » Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:59 pm

DearCan wrote:My experimental section was LG.

I did not have a question about soaking beans or Kafka.

User avatar
txadv11
Posts: 922
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 3:06 pm

Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?

Postby txadv11 » Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:25 pm

I had:
LR
*LG
RC
LR
LG

cowgirl_bebop
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:32 pm

Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?

Postby cowgirl_bebop » Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:28 pm

Kafka was definitely experimental. I had an experimental RC section so both of my LRs were real, and there was definitely no Kafka question on my test. I would remember that, because I like him so much

lieg
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:50 am

Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?

Postby lieg » Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:46 pm

Cowgirl, did you have a question about technicians vs. writers salaries in terms of seniority?

User avatar
Patriot1208
Posts: 7044
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:28 am

Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?

Postby Patriot1208 » Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:47 pm

lieg wrote:Cowgirl, did you have a question about technicians vs. writers salaries in terms of seniority?


I did and I only had two LR's

cowgirl_bebop
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:32 pm

Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?

Postby cowgirl_bebop » Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:47 pm

lieg wrote:Cowgirl, did you have a question about technicians vs. writers salaries in terms of seniority?


Yes, that one was real as well

lieg
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:50 am

Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?

Postby lieg » Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:51 pm

Was the section that contained the salary question included in the "weird" one that everyone is freaking out about, or in an easier section?

PS I really appreciate the input guys, thanks so much!

User avatar
raspberry
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 4:47 pm

Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?

Postby raspberry » Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:52 pm

lieg wrote:The most confusion I have seen has been figuring out which LR is experimental. People have been claiming that sections containing Kofka, alcohol drinking, soaking beans have been real. I had three LR's and did not have any of these questions. I am fairly certain on that. Someone did raise a point that it is possible that 2 different experimentals existed, and further, that even tests with the same layout had the experimental at a different time. I tend to this this is possible, and would certainly explain the difficulty in figuring this out.


I saw the thread where they were talking about those questions, but the first post is actually from 2006. That could explain things! I remember those questions from PTs.

5823
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:20 pm

Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?

Postby 5823 » Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:55 pm

.
Last edited by 5823 on Fri Apr 29, 2011 12:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

LSU Undergrad
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 1:13 am

Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?

Postby LSU Undergrad » Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:15 pm

I was thinking LR1 was experimental towards the end because it had a couple of question structures that I had not seen often. I believe one was what role something played in an analogy. I don't remember that one too often from practice. I only had 2 LRs so it was a real one.

lieg
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:50 am

Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?

Postby lieg » Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:16 pm

Great info guys, that's so funny about the one thread being a few years old.

Still can't get a handle on which LR was experimental, wish I could remember what questions were from which sections. Anyone with only 2 LR's remember one just seeming a bit odd? I know that's really vague, but honestly its the best way I can describe my first LR, I found it a bit difficult and after the first few I was just thinking, "Wow, these are just really unlike the last 6 or so PT's"

User avatar
minnbills
Posts: 3153
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?

Postby minnbills » Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:17 pm

LSU Undergrad wrote:I was thinking LR1 was experimental towards the end because it had a couple of question structures that I had not seen often. I believe one was what role something played in an analogy. I don't remember that one too often from practice. I only had 2 LRs so it was a real one.


Hmm well 2 of my LR were very typical, with another being very weird. I think we may have our answer here folks.

User avatar
fatduck
Posts: 4186
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?

Postby fatduck » Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:18 pm

Don't think my post was against the rules but editing just to be safe...
Last edited by fatduck on Mon Oct 11, 2010 12:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ArghItsBlarg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:21 pm

Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?

Postby ArghItsBlarg » Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:18 pm

lieg wrote:Was the section that contained the salary question included in the "weird" one that everyone is freaking out about, or in an easier section?

PS I really appreciate the input guys, thanks so much!


I had two LG sections, and I had the salary question, so I'd imagine that it's in a real section.

User avatar
Patriot1208
Posts: 7044
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:28 am

Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?

Postby Patriot1208 » Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:18 pm

fatduck, you better edit out that question or you will get banned. But yes that was real.

lieg
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:50 am

Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?

Postby lieg » Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:21 pm

ITSBLARG, do you remember if that section you had it in was the "unusualy LR" or one that seemed fairly normal?

User avatar
jonillson
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:14 pm

Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?

Postby jonillson » Mon Oct 11, 2010 12:37 am

minnbills wrote:I had:

RC (real)
LR (25) easy
LR (25) super hard... every stimulus seemed really long. Lots of complex questions.
LG
LR easy

Unfortunately I don't remember where any specific questions were for LR.


i had the same layout. however, i definitely did not have two 25 LRs in sections 2 and 3 (25, 26, but not sure in which order). i felt the same way about the two sections, but in reverse order:

RC (real)
LR (?) very difficult, very long, complex stimuli
LR (?) felt like a normal LR, ended with university president elections, a question that appears to have been on the scored section. i think this section also contained the sandstone worm question
LG (real)
LR (real)

i've concluded that there were two RC LR LR LG LR layouts, and that for some, section 2 was exp., for others, section 3.

can anyone corroborate?

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

Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?

Postby Sandro » Mon Oct 11, 2010 1:02 am

I had the same one I think, i'm assuiming LR 1 (sec2) was experimental because it was a lottt harder....

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

Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?

Postby Hedwig » Mon Oct 11, 2010 1:10 am

My experimental LR identified itself by being SUPER DUPER EASY and I loved every question and rocked my way through it and then found another LR and then another and was sad :(.

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

Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?

Postby Sandro » Mon Oct 11, 2010 1:17 am

actually i'm not even so sure anymore if LR1 or LR2 was easier for me. I know I finished LR2 with more time left but went back to a question or two. I hate not being able to remember much.

User avatar
minnbills
Posts: 3153
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Can we get to the bottom of this Experimental nonsense?

Postby minnbills » Mon Oct 11, 2010 8:25 am

jonillson wrote:
minnbills wrote:I had:

RC (real)
LR (25) easy
LR (25) super hard... every stimulus seemed really long. Lots of complex questions.
LG
LR easy

Unfortunately I don't remember where any specific questions were for LR.


i had the same layout. however, i definitely did not have two 25 LRs in sections 2 and 3 (25, 26, but not sure in which order). i felt the same way about the two sections, but in reverse order:

RC (real)
LR (?) very difficult, very long, complex stimuli
LR (?) felt like a normal LR, ended with university president elections, a question that appears to have been on the scored section. i think this section also contained the sandstone worm question
LG (real)
LR (real)

i've concluded that there were two RC LR LR LG LR layouts, and that for some, section 2 was exp., for others, section 3.

can anyone corroborate?



I think this is the case. unfortunately I don't remember where any questions were in particular.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Pozzo and 4 guests