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

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 3:15 pm

OrdinarilySkilled wrote:
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.


Mmm, It might be above average on the whole, come to think of it. It was definitely substantially easier than the June one, though that may have been influenced by my state of mind going in too. I differentiate based on the degree of uncertainty I was left with on each question, regarding how many I can eliminate through deduction to confirm what I think is the right answer. On this section right answers jumped out obviously, there were few ambiguous answers, and you could easily POE out the incorrect answers to confirm every question.

I will add that I may be exxagerating to myself how easy it was compared to the experimental I had immediately after it, which was VERY difficult. Especially the property law passage.

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 3:20 pm

Rudy wrote:
OrdinarilySkilled wrote:
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.


Mmm, It might be above average on the whole, come to think of it. It was definitely substantially easier than the June one, though that may have been influenced by my state of mind going in too. I differentiate based on the degree of uncertainty I was left with on each question, regarding how many I can eliminate through deduction to confirm what I think is the right answer. On this section right answers jumped out obviously, there were few ambiguous answers, and you could easily POE out the incorrect answers to confirm every question.

I will add that I may be exxagerating to myself how easy it was compared to the experimental I had immediately after it, which was VERY difficult. Especially the property law passage.

I hope you are right, I think most if not all of my wrong answers will be in RC and I don't really remember much besides it seeming difficult to get through. And since I did well on Junes RC I drew the comparison of it being more difficult.

Yea also, I had the experimental and real mixed up until like 20 mins ago. Property law one was hard but the comparitive one was easier.

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 3:27 pm

So making room for some outliers, it seems to me the consensus around the board about difficulty is this:

1. RC - Below average difficulty
2. LG - Average difficulty
3. LR - Above average difficulty

Does this square with what others are seeing? Obviously, I've seen at least one person for each section claim a given section was easier than usual, but on the whole I thought the response looked like what I listed above.

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

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

Postby Lasers » Mon Oct 11, 2010 3:30 pm

FlanSolo wrote:So making room for some outliers, it seems to me the consensus around the board about difficulty is this:

1. RC - Below average difficulty
2. LG - Average difficulty
3. LR - Above average difficulty

Does this square with what others are seeing? Obviously, I've seen at least one person for each section claim a given section was easier than usual, but on the whole I thought the response looked like what I listed above.


i think RC was of average difficulty, LG was average or slightly below, and LR was above.

overall, i thought it was harder than the june test (even the games).

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

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

Postby Sandro » Mon Oct 11, 2010 3:30 pm

just based on the amount of LR questions that people seemed to have a hard time with, I think the curve is pushing from -10 towards -11 and beyond. LG wasn't a "cakewalk" i'd rather have 3 gimmie games and a hard one than 4 games that required tons of hypos and you couldn't really determine a ton. RC while tame it wasn't super easy, and the last passage im sure tripped a lot of people up.


My initial guess was -10/-11. I'm leaning towards -11 now if it stays with 101 questions, with -12 a possibility.

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 3:33 pm

I'm agreeing with Lasers on his take on difficulty. LR is becoming a monster the more people discuss it...had a bit of a difficult time myself on the test but I thought I answered them all correctly at least.

User avatar
mjd
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 4:29 pm

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

Postby mjd » Mon Oct 11, 2010 3:33 pm

So making room for some outliers, it seems to me the consensus around the board about difficulty is this:

1. RC - Below average difficulty
2. LG - Average difficulty
3. LR - Above average difficulty

Does this square with what others are seeing? Obviously, I've seen at least one person for each section claim a given section was easier than usual, but on the whole I thought the response looked like what I listed above.


1. RC - Average difficulty (the fourth selection on historiography was tough, and the forgery passage had a subtle distinction that one had to read very carefully to pick up on)

2. LG - Average difficulty

3. LR - Above average difficulty (the two genuine LR sections made up the toughest combination of LR's that I have seen based on PT's)

I'm sensing a favorable curve on this test.
Last edited by mjd on Mon Oct 11, 2010 3:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

Postby Sandro » Mon Oct 11, 2010 3:33 pm

FlanSolo wrote:So making room for some outliers, it seems to me the consensus around the board about difficulty is this:

1. RC - Below average difficulty
2. LG - Average difficulty
3. LR - Above average difficulty

Does this square with what others are seeing? Obviously, I've seen at least one person for each section claim a given section was easier than usual, but on the whole I thought the response looked like what I listed above.


for me

1. RC Average
2. LG slightly above average, if you have on the easy side the LG sections you can just destroy, and the insane LG sections on the hard side, this one was def. in between. many hypos, many instances to make mistakes. IMO for me i couldnt just look at rules and say "Ok, this will happen, this will be a huge inference" etc.
3. LR Above average, one of the hardest sections in recent memory IMO. Some curveballs and tons of traps.

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

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

Postby tazmolover » Mon Oct 11, 2010 3:33 pm

LG average

RC Below average

LR INSANE

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 3:39 pm

I'll add for me personally:

1. RC - Below average
2. LG - Above average (although this was definitely in part a response to shitting my pants upon discovering another section of games after demolishing the easier set of experimental games before the break -- damn you LSAC!)
3. LR - About average, though I should admit I'm not really sure how I did on the first section (not that you really ever are) as it was my first section and I basically blacked out.

User avatar
compromises
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 3:09 pm

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

Postby compromises » Mon Oct 11, 2010 4:07 pm

I had RC first, and skipped right to the 4th passage as it had 8 questions. Glad I did this after reading about people having trouble finishing. I definitely was up in the air on a few questions in RC, but am hoping for -3 at most. I'd say it was average difficulty, but on the main point questions I felt the answer choices made the credited response really stick out, which doesn't happen for me most of the time and was my #1 concern going in.

LGs were above average difficulty, purely due to the lack of solid deductions that could be made and the amount of time the section took. It was also tough going at this section as my first LG (exp) section was very easy and I was sure I got at most -1.

LR are definitely my weak area, but I am very confident about one of the sections. The other one was definitely very challenging and tricky for me.

Overall, I felt this was tougher than any of the 50s I had practiced, but not insane.

User avatar
thisiswater
Posts: 995
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 1:51 am

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

Postby thisiswater » Mon Oct 11, 2010 4:44 pm

I thought the LG section on this test was interesting in that it seemed to target people who had prepared in certain ways. I've read LGB but the principles never stuck and in practice tests I took that usually hurt me. On this test, though, the fact that I didn't spend a lot of time looking for inferences or trying to write out all the rules seemed to help me.

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 4:49 pm

thisiswater wrote:I thought the LG section on this test was interesting in that it seemed to target people who had prepared in certain ways. I've read LGB but the principles never stuck and in practice tests I took that usually hurt me. On this test, though, the fact that I didn't spend a lot of time looking for inferences or trying to write out all the rules seemed to help me.


I totally didn't feel this. I felt some I HATE YOU LRB vibes from the LSAT people in LR.

This might be because I read the LG, used lots of its methods but in reality developed my own system.

I also might be the only person who actually just always hypo's things. I just hypo the hell out of everything and I finish on time, and everyone's like "YOU HAD TO HYPO SO MUCH." Which, true, you did, but since I ... always hypo, it wasn't a big deal for me.

User avatar
thisiswater
Posts: 995
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 1:51 am

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

Postby thisiswater » Mon Oct 11, 2010 4:51 pm

eit wrote:
thisiswater wrote:I thought the LG section on this test was interesting in that it seemed to target people who had prepared in certain ways. I've read LGB but the principles never stuck and in practice tests I took that usually hurt me. On this test, though, the fact that I didn't spend a lot of time looking for inferences or trying to write out all the rules seemed to help me.


I totally didn't feel this. I felt some I HATE YOU LRB vibes from the LSAT people in LR.

This might be because I read the LG, used lots of its methods but in reality developed my own system.

I also might be the only person who actually just always hypo's things. I just hypo the hell out of everything and I finish on time, and everyone's like "YOU HAD TO HYPO SO MUCH." Which, true, you did, but since I ... always hypo, it wasn't a big deal for me.


yeah, I always hypo and I am used to always hypoing so it didn't throw me at all. Some of the other posters seemed to get stuck on the no major inferences point and may have wasted some time looking for things that weren't there.

User avatar
thisiswater
Posts: 995
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 1:51 am

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

Postby thisiswater » Mon Oct 11, 2010 4:51 pm

eit wrote:
thisiswater wrote:I thought the LG section on this test was interesting in that it seemed to target people who had prepared in certain ways. I've read LGB but the principles never stuck and in practice tests I took that usually hurt me. On this test, though, the fact that I didn't spend a lot of time looking for inferences or trying to write out all the rules seemed to help me.


I totally didn't feel this. I felt some I HATE YOU LRB vibes from the LSAT people in LR.

This might be because I read the LG, used lots of its methods but in reality developed my own system.

I also might be the only person who actually just always hypo's things. I just hypo the hell out of everything and I finish on time, and everyone's like "YOU HAD TO HYPO SO MUCH." Which, true, you did, but since I ... always hypo, it wasn't a big deal for me.


yeah, I always hypo and I am used to always hypoing so it didn't throw me at all. Some of the other posters seemed to get stuck on the no major inferences point and may have wasted some time looking for things that weren't there.

ATR
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 9:18 pm

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

Postby ATR » Mon Oct 11, 2010 4:53 pm

I had the LR-LG-RC-LR-LG format, if I recall correctly (2 LGs for sure)

RC: Seemed average; easier in the first few passages, but the last one (historiography) was challenging
LG: Average; like others have said, nothing overly complicated, although I did run out of time on the last questions (2 blank)
LR: Above average; the first passage was pretty difficult IMO




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: freekick, Thomas Hagan, ESQ. and 4 guests