I would call Oct 2010 a test that looked easier than it was

littlepixie11
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:05 pm

I would call Oct 2010 a test that looked easier than it was

Postby littlepixie11 » Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:16 pm

I'm not saying it was super hard, or super easy-there are many comments saying both, but I do think that the theme throughout all the sections were that they were simple types/setups but they were harder than they first appeared, moreso than other PTs that I took where the hard ones were just super long/complex looking.

User avatar
OrdinarilySkilled
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 10:22 am

Re: I would call Oct 2010 a test that looked easier than it was

Postby OrdinarilySkilled » Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:20 pm

I agree. I took both June and Oct. I came out of this one thinking it was much easier, but as it has set in and I think it was slightly harder than Junes. The LG, while not difficult, all had potential pitfalls whereas June had three gimme games and one semi-difficult one. RC was above average difficulty also.

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

Re: I would call Oct 2010 a test that looked easier than it was

Postby kilgoretrout103 » Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:21 pm

Yes, I agree. Many of the LR questions were deceptively hard with tons of trap answers (Rule of law, shakespeare, steel processing, I'm looking at you).

The LG game types looked SUPER simple on the surface. We had a distribution game with a tiny matching component, a selection/sequencing hybrid with only 5 entities, and then two (count 'em, TWO) pure sequencing games. Traditionally, games were you only have to sequence have been among the easiest. There are never two of them in the same section without any sort of hybrid twist.

But...both games were a little tricky. The artifacts one had a conditional rule which always makes pure sequencing games messy, and the nurses game had rules that didn't combine with each other well, and made it almost impossible to find deductions up-front.

EDIT: Compare LG to June, where the Stone/Mud hauling game was essentially the first of its kind in LSAT history, and then there were two complex hybrids on top of it. Nothing like that screamed "HARD TEST" here, but nonetheless I think it was.
Last edited by kilgoretrout103 on Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
incompetentia
Posts: 2307
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:57 pm

Re: I would call Oct 2010 a test that looked easier than it was

Postby incompetentia » Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:22 pm

The hidden difficulty, if a supportable claim (I can definitely see it), could push the curve far in one direction if it's predetermined like some people are saying.
Any thoughts on this?

littlepixie11
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:05 pm

Re: I would call Oct 2010 a test that looked easier than it was

Postby littlepixie11 » Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:24 pm

OrdinarilySkilled wrote:I agree. I took both June and Oct. I came out of this one thinking it was much easier, but as it has set in and I think it was slightly harder than Junes. The LG, while not difficult, all had potential pitfalls whereas June had three gimme games and one semi-difficult one. RC was above average difficulty also.

I feel a lil alone in this but I liked June's 2010 LG SOOO much more than this LG. I prefer the complex looking games, such as dino in June 09, because they are so restrictive. I felt like with the Oct one, I hardly made any deductions I could have swung anywhere.

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

Re: I would call Oct 2010 a test that looked easier than it was

Postby kilgoretrout103 » Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:25 pm

incompetentia wrote:The hidden difficulty, if a supportable claim (I can definitely see it), could push the curve far in one direction if it's predetermined like some people are saying.
Any thoughts on this?


It's not predetermined. The scaled scores correspond to percentiles. For example, the top 0.02% of test takers get 180s, and the top 1% get 170+. The LSAC can't know ahead of time how many questions the top 1% will miss, so they can't tell ahead of time how many correct answers are necessary for 170.

User avatar
Rudy
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 4:47 pm

Re: I would call Oct 2010 a test that looked easier than it was

Postby Rudy » Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:25 pm

OrdinarilySkilled wrote:I agree. I took both June and Oct. I came out of this one thinking it was much easier, but as it has set in and I think it was slightly harder than Junes. The LG, while not difficult, all had potential pitfalls whereas June had three gimme games and one semi-difficult one. RC was above average difficulty also.



Disagree- RC was definitely easier than normal, LR was harder than normal, LG was not EASY, but since it was all standard, common types it was much easier than the sorts of curveballs in June. I agree it was, in retrospect, harder than it felt, but I'm still VERY confident in my performance, which seems to indicate a test much more in line with the early 50's than the late 50's.

And with respect to two pure sequencing: I'm usually awful at them, and I felt like they were just unnaturally easy. Could be I am fucked though.

User avatar
forward
Posts: 413
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am

Re: I would call Oct 2010 a test that looked easier than it was

Postby forward » Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:25 pm

For what it's worth, I agree.

FlanSolo
Posts: 439
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 11:34 am

Re: I would call Oct 2010 a test that looked easier than it was

Postby FlanSolo » Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:28 pm

kilgoretrout103 wrote:
incompetentia wrote:The hidden difficulty, if a supportable claim (I can definitely see it), could push the curve far in one direction if it's predetermined like some people are saying.
Any thoughts on this?


It's not predetermined. The scaled scores correspond to percentiles. For example, the top 0.02% of test takers get 180s, and the top 1% get 170+. The LSAC can't know ahead of time how many questions the top 1% will miss, so they can't tell ahead of time how many correct answers are necessary for 170.


Actually, I'm pretty sure they can and do. That's what the experimental sections are for. They look at how scorers at certain levels do on certain questions/sections, and then base inclusion of questions on that.

User avatar
Rudy
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 4:47 pm

Re: I would call Oct 2010 a test that looked easier than it was

Postby Rudy » Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:29 pm

FlanSolo wrote:
kilgoretrout103 wrote:
incompetentia wrote:The hidden difficulty, if a supportable claim (I can definitely see it), could push the curve far in one direction if it's predetermined like some people are saying.
Any thoughts on this?


It's not predetermined. The scaled scores correspond to percentiles. For example, the top 0.02% of test takers get 180s, and the top 1% get 170+. The LSAC can't know ahead of time how many questions the top 1% will miss, so they can't tell ahead of time how many correct answers are necessary for 170.


Actually, I'm pretty sure they can and do. That's what the experimental sections are for. They look at how scorers at certain levels do on certain questions/sections, and then base inclusion of questions on that.


TITCR +1

littlepixie11
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:05 pm

Re: I would call Oct 2010 a test that looked easier than it was

Postby littlepixie11 » Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:29 pm

Rudy wrote:
OrdinarilySkilled wrote:I agree. I took both June and Oct. I came out of this one thinking it was much easier, but as it has set in and I think it was slightly harder than Junes. The LG, while not difficult, all had potential pitfalls whereas June had three gimme games and one semi-difficult one. RC was above average difficulty also.



Disagree- RC was definitely easier than normal, LR was harder than normal, LG was not EASY, but since it was all standard, common types it was much easier than the sorts of curveballs in June. I agree it was, in retrospect, harder than it felt, but I'm still VERY confident in my performance, which seems to indicate a test much more in line with the early 50's than the late 50's.

And with respect to two pure sequencing: I'm usually awful at them, and I felt like they were just unnaturally easy. Could be I am fucked though.

The June one was the best PT I ever did. I loved the games too. Maybe I just like strange LSATs.

FlanSolo
Posts: 439
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 11:34 am

Re: I would call Oct 2010 a test that looked easier than it was

Postby FlanSolo » Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:33 pm

My guess is that this test was of average difficult for recent tests, and people will probably come in around their ranges. The more we all sit around discussing this absent actual test questions and credited responses, the "harder" it's going to feel because nobody knows anything right now. I know I've started to second guess myself on literally every single question people have put up for discussion here. Based on past performance there's no way I get them all wrong, but it's starting to feel like I did.

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

Re: I would call Oct 2010 a test that looked easier than it was

Postby DrackedaryMaster » Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:34 pm

Sigh

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=59380&start=50


See what the Feb. 2009 people had to say about these games which apparentally was their experimental section.

User avatar
OrdinarilySkilled
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 10:22 am

Re: I would call Oct 2010 a test that looked easier than it was

Postby OrdinarilySkilled » Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:34 pm

Rudy wrote:
OrdinarilySkilled wrote:I agree. I took both June and Oct. I came out of this one thinking it was much easier, but as it has set in and I think it was slightly harder than Junes. The LG, while not difficult, all had potential pitfalls whereas June had three gimme games and one semi-difficult one. RC was above average difficulty also.



Disagree- RC was definitely easier than normal, LR was harder than normal, LG was not EASY, but since it was all standard, common types it was much easier than the sorts of curveballs in June. I agree it was, in retrospect, harder than it felt, but I'm still VERY confident in my performance, which seems to indicate a test much more in line with the early 50's than the late 50's.

And with respect to two pure sequencing: I'm usually awful at them, and I felt like they were just unnaturally easy. Could be I am fucked though.


RC had some tricky questions. You probably effed it up.

User avatar
incompetentia
Posts: 2307
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:57 pm

Re: I would call Oct 2010 a test that looked easier than it was

Postby incompetentia » Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:35 pm

Conclusion: LSAT is run by a bunch of psychology professors who secretly infiltrate law school forums after the test for three weeks to gather data for research experiments.

littlepixie11
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:05 pm

Re: I would call Oct 2010 a test that looked easier than it was

Postby littlepixie11 » Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:36 pm

FlanSolo wrote:My guess is that this test was of average difficult for recent tests, and people will probably come in around their ranges. The more we all sit around discussing this absent actual test questions and credited responses, the "harder" it's going to feel because nobody knows anything right now. I know I've started to second guess myself on literally every single question people have put up for discussion here. Based on past performance there's no way I get them all wrong, but it's starting to feel like I did.

Hm, I discussed the ones that ppl brought up, and it gave me a clear idea that I got at least 2 wrong and why, which may or may not be a good thing, but at least its a dose of reality (for me) lol
Antibiotics(not reading it carefully) and Shakespeare (reading it too carefully)

User avatar
incompetentia
Posts: 2307
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:57 pm

Re: I would call Oct 2010 a test that looked easier than it was

Postby incompetentia » Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:40 pm

DrackedaryMaster wrote:Sigh

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=59380&start=50


See what the Feb. 2009 people had to say about these games which apparentally was their experimental section.

This makes no sense to me. February 2009 was 57 and dinos. I -0'd that section taking it, but dinos took me almost 15 minutes to complete and I thought it was much harder than the four piddly things we got on this test.

Then again, I think it is agreed that 57-60 was the stretch of ridiculous LGs and I don't remember any of 53-56 being particularly challenging at all, so we might just be comparing the same basket of dead babies to two completely different baskets of live babies.

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

Re: I would call Oct 2010 a test that looked easier than it was

Postby DrackedaryMaster » Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:43 pm

incompetentia wrote:
DrackedaryMaster wrote:Sigh

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=59380&start=50


See what the Feb. 2009 people had to say about these games which apparentally was their experimental section.

This makes no sense to me. February 2009 was 57 and dinos. I -0'd that section taking it, but dinos took me almost 15 minutes to complete and I thought it was much harder than the four piddly things we got on this test.

Then again, I think it is agreed that 57-60 was the stretch of ridiculous LGs and I don't remember any of 53-56 being particularly challenging at all, so we might just be comparing the same basket of dead babies to two completely different baskets of live babies.


No, this is a February, undiscosed test, not apart of PT's. But this was apparentally the test our LG got tested in, and from the comments in the thread, a lot of people didn't like them (particularly the nurses/track game) for whatever reason.

While we're on difficulty, let's look at what the October 2008 people have to say about RC, which was one of their experimentals (there are more threads, but this one gets the point across)

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=42481

littlepixie11
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:05 pm

Re: I would call Oct 2010 a test that looked easier than it was

Postby littlepixie11 » Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:45 pm

I've been looking for the threads on hte experimental sections, ugh this search feature is annnnoying

FlanSolo
Posts: 439
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 11:34 am

Re: I would call Oct 2010 a test that looked easier than it was

Postby FlanSolo » Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:46 pm

incompetentia wrote:
DrackedaryMaster wrote:Sigh

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=59380&start=50


See what the Feb. 2009 people had to say about these games which apparentally was their experimental section.

This makes no sense to me. February 2009 was 57 and dinos. I -0'd that section taking it, but dinos took me almost 15 minutes to complete and I thought it was much harder than the four piddly things we got on this test.

Then again, I think it is agreed that 57-60 was the stretch of ridiculous LGs and I don't remember any of 53-56 being particularly challenging at all, so we might just be comparing the same basket of dead babies to two completely different baskets of live babies.


I think the funny thing about this section of games is the number of people who are calling it "easy" based on the fact that they were "doable, but time consuming." Look, if the games were time consuming, they weren't "easy." I thought they were all of a similar difficulty level, which made deciding which ones to attack when hard (and thus made time management more difficult). They required a lot of hypotheticals and close reading (old to new anyone?), which made for an overall experience of moderate difficulty. Obviously, it was no dinos/awards, but it wasn't a breeze either.

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

Re: I would call Oct 2010 a test that looked easier than it was

Postby kilgoretrout103 » Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:46 pm

FlanSolo wrote:
kilgoretrout103 wrote:
incompetentia wrote:The hidden difficulty, if a supportable claim (I can definitely see it), could push the curve far in one direction if it's predetermined like some people are saying.
Any thoughts on this?


It's not predetermined. The scaled scores correspond to percentiles. For example, the top 0.02% of test takers get 180s, and the top 1% get 170+. The LSAC can't know ahead of time how many questions the top 1% will miss, so they can't tell ahead of time how many correct answers are necessary for 170.


Actually, I'm pretty sure they can and do. That's what the experimental sections are for. They look at how scorers at certain levels do on certain questions/sections, and then base inclusion of questions on that.


Oh, interesting. I figured they would edit the questions in the experimental afterwards, based on the data they receive. But you're saying that the experimental sections we see are the final, polished versions that go straight into future tests?

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

Re: I would call Oct 2010 a test that looked easier than it was

Postby Hedwig » Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:51 pm

I would call it looking easier than it really was because this makes me feel like we're getting a good curve. In reality, I felt like it was just a WEIRD FREAKING TEST.

This might be just because it's the test I have to wait for, so in retrospect, everything seems weird. I just feel so wrong-footed and deceived.

But if I had this as a prep test, and marked it right away, I would have been all, "oh, hum" probably. Maybe.

User avatar
Rudy
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 4:47 pm

Re: I would call Oct 2010 a test that looked easier than it was

Postby Rudy » Mon Oct 11, 2010 3:02 pm

OrdinarilySkilled wrote:
Rudy wrote:
OrdinarilySkilled wrote:I agree. I took both June and Oct. I came out of this one thinking it was much easier, but as it has set in and I think it was slightly harder than Junes. The LG, while not difficult, all had potential pitfalls whereas June had three gimme games and one semi-difficult one. RC was above average difficulty also.



Disagree- RC was definitely easier than normal, LR was harder than normal, LG was not EASY, but since it was all standard, common types it was much easier than the sorts of curveballs in June. I agree it was, in retrospect, harder than it felt, but I'm still VERY confident in my performance, which seems to indicate a test much more in line with the early 50's than the late 50's.

And with respect to two pure sequencing: I'm usually awful at them, and I felt like they were just unnaturally easy. Could be I am fucked though.


RC had some tricky questions. You probably effed it up.


Since I've never had more than -2 on any RC section, including my first diagnostic... no?

I meant I'm fucked for LG. I'm 100% certain the real RC was super easy- I finished the first two passages in 10 minutes, went to pee, came back, and still finished the section with ~3minutes (which admittedly is slow for me, since I usually finish RC with 5-7, but I did leave to pee which required a trip upstairs).

littlepixie11
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:05 pm

Re: I would call Oct 2010 a test that looked easier than it was

Postby littlepixie11 » Mon Oct 11, 2010 3:10 pm

I'm paranoid that with all these common sense questions and non LSAT thinking questions more people in general got a higher score and the curve will be crueler. Not sure...

User avatar
OrdinarilySkilled
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 10:22 am

Re: I would call Oct 2010 a test that looked easier than it was

Postby OrdinarilySkilled » Mon Oct 11, 2010 3:11 pm

Rudy wrote:
Since I've never had more than -2 on any RC section, including my first diagnostic... no?

I meant I'm fucked for LG. I'm 100% certain the real RC was super easy- I finished the first two passages in 10 minutes, went to pee, came back, and still finished the section with ~3minutes (which admittedly is slow for me, since I usually finish RC with 5-7, but I did leave to pee which required a trip upstairs).


Then how are you able to distinguish between this one compared to others? If they are all easy how do you know which ones are above or below average? Or maybe that makes it easier? Compared to June i thought this RC was more difficult and compared to all PTs as a whole this was above average.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: blackpi, curry4bfast, dontsaywhatyoumean, jagerbom79, Majestic-12 [Bot], paragonloop and 4 guests