Top Law Schools

testmachine45 wrote:How is that possible? That's impossible that they provided no space for a different game than they provided to me.

What are you, shrooming?

both stainless and the first game (for me) had limited space.

KevinP wrote:

testmachine45 wrote:

Canadiana wrote:LG is 23 out of 102 questions. Two of the LG questions were not difficult, though one was at the end. LR and RC were not especially difficult. 12ish difficult questions on LG will not be enough for an unprecedented curve. It will be -12 or -13.

I disagree. I disagree because the strategies we learned were all put neutralized on this test. Has anyone ever seen LG arrainged where the first is not the easiest?

Yes, this has happened before.

I still think it's pretty freaking screwed up they put that section as my freaking 5th section, no space to draw on on the first problem, and 2 weird ass logic games, and the easiest at the end. This is my 3rd retake and last chance this cycle and they decide to completely screw me.

yeah the fact it was 5th..i was tired already. now i have to train more to make sure that doesnt happena gain.

confusedlawyer wrote:both stainless and the first game (for me) had limited space.

Ah, well hello there! We have an answer!

The Games order is all over this site and there is only one order.

I honestly have no idea how I did or how the curve should be. It was definitely more challenging than October I felt, but it was hard to gauge because I feel like I have improved since October on accuracy in LR and RC. I feel weirdly ambivalent about the whole thing.

testmachine45 wrote:

confusedlawyer wrote:both stainless and the first game (for me) had limited space.

Ah, well hello there! We have an answer!

And the first game had less space than the second. And possibly less free space than ANY other game since PT-1

well-hello-there wrote:

testmachine45 wrote:

confusedlawyer wrote:both stainless and the first game (for me) had limited space.

Ah, well hello there! We have an answer!

And the first game had less space than the second. And possibly less free space than ANY other game since PT-1

I'd say space-wise it was on par with the award grants game in the late 50's, I remember having to do the diagrams on the page beside it because it needed a large diagram. I didn't have trouble at all with the space on the first game TBH.

well-hello-there wrote:

2011Law wrote:Someone else posted that the way this LG was different was that there were way fewer deductions to be made than in previous LGs, and I think that's right. That meant that most questions did not have a quick answer.

Wrong! What this usually means is that ALL of the questions have a quick answer because there ARE no big deductions. When that happens, look for a lot of answer choices being eliminated just from the initial rules. A lot of times A, B, and C answers will be time traps and then either D or E won't violate any of the rules and will be correct.

I understand where you are coming from (even if I think you are trying to make a claim based purely on personal experience about the A,B,C,D,E). I don't think that these games were OMFGROFLDEATH but I think we can all agree that they did (atleast slightly) deviate from the usual forms on many past PTs and on most the practice that the prep class kids had to go through.

That being said, I have heard multiple LSAT tutors say that the games will be moving away from Heavy Rule/Heavy Deduction type of games. Turns out that they were right. Ultimately, from what I have gathered the LSAT is, to a certain degree, now shaping the test based off of some of the most prevalent prep classes. Why create the same game types over and over again if you know that most serious test takers have drilled hard fast rules into their heads, that essentially strip any logical deductions from the process? (Honestly, I believe for most people, we learn the rules and how to apply them but never really had to think about how games themselves worked).

Looks like games is moving more into a Sudoku-ish territory. Each question will play on a hypothetical; on harder questions you may need to draft scenarios for that question alone. That being said, the LSAT needs to have known that these games were different. And even without difficulty being factored in, it seems intuitive that "New-Ness" would be.

.

confusedlawyer wrote:I'd say space-wise it was on par with the award grants game in the late 50's, I remember having to do the diagrams on the page beside it because it needed a large diagram. I didn't have trouble at all with the space on the first game TBH.

PT-57 game 4...Yeah, that one looks about right.
Edit. But only because it has the end of section message at the bottom telling you to stop and not to move on to the next section. I think game 1 in Dec. had just as little space as pt-57-4 except it was all game taking up the space.

I shouldn't go to law school. I don't care about any of this. I rarely think logically. And I love feelings.

did anyone think RC had longer passages than usual

xmrmckenziex wrote:That being said, the LSAT needs to have known that these games were different. And even without difficulty being factored in, it seems intuitive that "New-Ness" would be.

I think that might explain why the rest of the test was so damn easy. I agree that they were a little different, not hard, just different. When I took the June 2007 PT for the first time last week, I totally destroyed it and before I looked at the scale, I was sure that my -4 would have given me a 179. It turned out I scored a 175 having missed only 4 questions. I think that they expected everyone to do bad because of the new dual passage RC section and so they made the rest of the test really easy. Maybe that's what happened here.

peter844 wrote:did anyone think RC had longer passages than usual

I noticed at least 2 of the 4 went to 64-65 lines which is somewhat longer than normal, but still not dreadfully long or different (Even though I struggled).

Or maybe all their trial runs of the new dual passage RC resulted in test takers not taking that section seriously because they knew it was the experimental. This would make it seem to the psychometricians that the dual rc was harder than it really was, resulting in them assembling together easier sections for the rest of the test. December's test was easy but not as easy as June 2007 and so maybe there was a similar effect but just not as pronounced.
edited for clarity.

Well-Hello-There, no one else thinks the DEcmeber test was easy. It was extremely hard.

testmachine45 wrote:Well-Hello-There, no one else thinks the December test was easy. It was extremely hard.

I definitely didn't think it was easy. If not for the games screw up, I'd probably think my score is at a 170+ right now. Now, I'm just hoping for a 165.

testmachine45 wrote:Well-Hello-There, no one else thinks the DEcmeber test was easy. It was extremely hard.

Fair enough. Maybe I thought it was easy because I got duped by all the trick answers. I'll get back to you in a month. *only if I did really well because if I did bad then i'll be hiding in a cave

Can somebody explain what the "curve" means exactly? Is it the number of wrong answers that results in a raw score=170? Why is it 170?

it's arbitrary. the op could have posed the curve question as "What do you think it will take to get a 160" and then we would all be arguing about -23's and -25's and -29's.

I have the curve at a -16. Imagine the poor saps who tried to guess which 26 LR was fake. Last RC passage was a bit rough. LG was well, LG. Some tough questions. December test = tons of retakers and a ton of poor test takers. -16 curve for 170 - 31 for 160.

elaw wrote:I have the curve at a -16. Imagine the poor saps who tried to guess which 26 LR was fake. Last RC passage was a bit rough. LG was well, LG. Some tough questions. December test = tons of retakers and a ton of poor test takers. -16 curve for 170 - 31 for 160.

If that's true, then i'll see you all at Harvard!

We have had -14/-13/-14 the last 3 tests. A -14 is a guarantee ladies and gents. -15/16 is not out of the query either.

well-hello-there wrote:

elaw wrote:I have the curve at a -16. Imagine the poor saps who tried to guess which 26 LR was fake. Last RC passage was a bit rough. LG was well, LG. Some tough questions. December test = tons of retakers and a ton of poor test takers. -16 curve for 170 - 31 for 160.

If that's true, then i'll see you all at Harvard!

-16 is ludicrous