How many did you miss on the Dec 2010 LG Forum

[FlanSolo]

ALWAYS my worst section. These, being as difficult as they were, probably will single-handedly ruin my score.

I'm guessing I missed at least 10. Nightmare. Hoping I did well enough on the other sections, I guess. Blind optimism at this point.

Ph enthusiast or Phish fan?

[androstan]

I am guessing that I missed 7-9...which sucks....but so glad that I had LG 5th...

+1

[joebloe]

I don't know for certain that I got any wrong, but I do know that I guessed to some extent on 6-8. That said, if I got fewer than 4 wrong in LG, I should probably gamble more.

[jblev2]

I don't know for certain that I got any wrong, but I do know that I guessed to some extent on 6-8. That said, if I got fewer than 4 wrong in LG, I should probably gamble more.

LOL, I am with you on that one.

[Sandro]

For those of you saying you guessed on a lot/missed 6-10 , what level were you PTing at / what was your typical games section like?

Mid/High 160s PTs with -8 LG on Oct one of my all time highs. Dec will probably rival that.

[bball85]

The Games section was just flat out unfair. I don't care what the curve will be on this test because it couldn't possibly account for the disparity in difficulty between this LG and maybe the past 20 LGs publicly released by LSAC. I'm an ace at games and found three of these games to be extremely difficult (the first one being hard because of the limited space to write). Even if the curve is -14, which in my opinion is absolute best case scenario, that only accounts for the LG section being 3-4 questions more difficult than a regular LG section on other LSATs. There was no way to prepare for this LG section, which can't be said about any recent LG sections. It just came down to scrambling and quickly/sloppily trying to answer as many questions as possible.

I practice at -0/-1 on LGs and I wouldn't be surprised with a -8 on this section (and I pretty much answered every question but have absolutely no confidence that I did so accurately). Unless the curve is -17/-18, the people applying to law school with this December score are at a distinct disadvantage from people applying in the past.

Anyone else who was getting-0/-1 on PTs feel the same or am I just whining?

[kkklick]

That's the thing about this test everyone found it hard, I've effectively eliminated any possibility worse than -4, but saying that -4 itself is likely. I have a feeling that the ordering of the LG, especially having an easier but doable one right before threw people off their game just that little extra. Otherwise I have no explanation I thought the games were hard but fair.

[Sandro]

I think also what people are underestimating is how much weight each LG section carries(not dental). Slip up on a LR question, thats -1. Misread something in RC or forget a part of the passage , maybe -2 confined to that passage.

Miss a rule on LG? Mis diagram? Miss an inference ? Chances are you are looking at -2 all the way to -6.

Also timing. These two hard games were right before a piece of cake game that should be -0 to top testers. Struggling on stained glass/conferences I'm sure lead many people to run out of time for the last game.

I thought RC was a little harder than Oct and LR on the same level, combined with a much much harder LG you have the makings for a relatively big jump in curve especially with 102 questions.

[kkklick]

I'm starting to believe a -14 is possibility.

[LSATclincher]

PT'ed consistently at -2. I think I'm -3 to -5 on this. My analysis of the LG as a whole:

The first game providing no space was strictly a psychological trick. The actual game took me about 4 minutes. That allowed me extra time for the 2 "tough" games. They were challenging. But with the extra time, I was able to finish the entire section but one question.

[KevinP]

The Games section was just flat out unfair. I don't care what the curve will be on this test because it couldn't possibly account for the disparity in difficulty between this LG and maybe the past 20 LGs publicly released by LSAC. I'm an ace at games and found three of these games to be extremely difficult (the first one being hard because of the limited space to write). Even if the curve is -14, which in my opinion is absolute best case scenario, that only accounts for the LG section being 3-4 questions more difficult than a regular LG section on other LSATs. There was no way to prepare for this LG section, which can't be said about any recent LG sections. It just came down to scrambling and quickly/sloppily trying to answer as many questions as possible.

I practice at -0/-1 on LGs and I wouldn't be surprised with a -8 on this section (and I pretty much answered every question but have absolutely no confidence that I did so accurately). Unless the curve is -17/-18, the people applying to law school with this December score are at a distinct disadvantage from people applying in the past.

Anyone else who was getting-0/-1 on PTs feel the same or am I just whining?

+1

Same boat as you. In fact, I would rather prefer a -11 curve w/ my normal LG range of -0 than the -7 or so I got this time around. A screw up on LG translates into a shit load of more missed questions for me than a screw up on LR/RC combined. This is my 3rd retake and I really feel like I was screwed.

[hokie]

The Games section was just flat out unfair. I don't care what the curve will be on this test because it couldn't possibly account for the disparity in difficulty between this LG and maybe the past 20 LGs publicly released by LSAC. I'm an ace at games and found three of these games to be extremely difficult (the first one being hard because of the limited space to write). Even if the curve is -14, which in my opinion is absolute best case scenario, that only accounts for the LG section being 3-4 questions more difficult than a regular LG section on other LSATs. There was no way to prepare for this LG section, which can't be said about any recent LG sections. It just came down to scrambling and quickly/sloppily trying to answer as many questions as possible.

I practice at -0/-1 on LGs and I wouldn't be surprised with a -8 on this section (and I pretty much answered every question but have absolutely no confidence that I did so accurately). Unless the curve is -17/-18, the people applying to law school with this December score are at a distinct disadvantage from people applying in the past.

Anyone else who was getting-0/-1 on PTs feel the same or am I just whining?

+1

Same boat as you. In fact, I would rather prefer a -11 curve w/ my normal LG range of -0 than the -7 or so I got this time around. A screw up on LG translates into a shit load of more missed questions for me than a screw up on LR/RC combined. This is my 3rd retake and I really feel like I was screwed.

Agreed. LG is always a "given" for me and rarely miss any questions on all of my PTs. Having said that, I could be anywhere from -0 (which would truly be a miracle) to like -10 . As I am also a retake that was banking on a higher score, saying that this LG is a disadvantage for applicants is an understatement.

[bigkahuna2020]

For those of you saying you guessed on a lot/missed 6-10 , what level were you PTing at / what was your typical games section like?

Mid/High 160s PTs with -8 LG on Oct one of my all time highs. Dec will probably rival that.

Was PTing at 167-169 (with the occasional 170+) before my October, 165-168 before December, was averaging 16-18 correct on my PT LGs, got a -12 on October's (all time low lol) and I finished 2 games plus 1 elimination question on this one.

[Sandro]

I too would much rather have a -10 or -11 with an easy games section. IMO last two games sections have been more difficult than a lot of the -10s and -11 curved tests of the mid 40s early 50s....

[well-hello-there]

PT'ed consistently at -2. I think I'm -3 to -5 on this. My analysis of the LG as a whole:

The first game providing no space was strictly a psychological trick. The actual game took me about 4 minutes. That allowed me extra time for the 2 "tough" games. They were challenging. But with the extra time, I was able to finish the entire section but one question.

+1

[deakon10]

As I flipped the page to my last section, I blew out a sigh of relief knowing that it was almost over....logic games would be my last section. Consistently scoring -1 or -2 max, I knew this would be a piece of cake. Also thought about how glad I was to be finishing off on a good note......

...little did i know. I saw the first game and almost had a heart attack. I think I said "oh sh*t" aloud. There was absolutely no room for me to draw. Skipped. Luckily got the habit of skipping through as soon as I have problems, so I finished up the two easier games before coming back to conferences and windows. Both tripped me up hardcore. 5 minute warning came and went, and when she called "pencils down" I still had *4* empty. Not even touched on the scan tron. Not even a 1 in 5 guess. The scan tron machine will come and go over them as if those bubbles are on vacation. Unfortunately for me, on top of these 4 I am pretty sure I got another 3-4 wrong. So we're talking -8 on LG alone.

I thought this was the end of my life, but in all honesty, thinking back now to the hazy memories...doesn't it seem like LR and RC was easier than normal? I personally thought it was "too easy" to the fact where that usually means you are picking the "clever wrong" choice. So either I messed up even more hardcore, or I did better on LR and RC than normal, which should counterbalance the LG. If this is the case, though, overall, then we are looking at a normal curve.
I just want my damn PT'ing score.

Either way, I hate you LSAC and the fact that I have to wait another 3 weeks for these damn scores. It is 1am and I am deliriously writing this post. Like many of you fellow tls-ers... I have absolutely no idea what my future holds. This anticipation is killing me.

Sorry for the long post. I am recovering from my drunk.

Night

[SchopenhauerFTW]

.

[cowgirl_bebop]

I know I missed 5-6 on LG because I always do.

Everything else is a serious toss up. If Im lucky, I escaped with a -11

[albusdumbledore]

LG was pretty tough. I PT usually at -0 and typically I'll finish LG sections 5 minutes early. Still think I did ok on them, but they weren't easy. I muscled through the first game pretty quick - about 5 minutes or so. Then I did stained glass and like has been said before, it's not that it was that hard, it was just very time consuming. This probably took me about 12 minutes or so, but I think I got them all right unless I made some bonehead mistake. Hit the last two games and opted to do the fourth game first (Best decision I made all day). I'm certain I aced that, and I had 10 minutes left to do the conference game, but it took me too long to set it up properly. Got the first one right and probably 2 more. Educated guess on two others. I would say -0 (if I got really lucky) to -4.

[kkklick]

I actually now feel the worst possible scenario for myself is -4. I just regret spending so much time on conferences which was only 5 questions, and allocated that time to stained glass windows where I was unsure of 3-4 answers. -1 to -4 I feel, but I hope I'm not being overly optimistic.

[hndls022]

What tripped everyone up on the stained glass game so much? I remember there being a couple of conditional rules, but if you were atleast decent at applying formal logic it shouldn't have been as horrible as I've been hearing.


Conferences however...were an immediate skip.

[FlanSolo]

What tripped everyone up on the stained glass game so much? I remember there being a couple of conditional rules, but if you were atleast decent at applying formal logic it shouldn't have been as horrible as I've been hearing.


Conferences however...were an immediate skip.

All of that's true regarding the rules, but still, the nature of the game was among the more difficult types (I don't think I can say which one for fear of the mods) and the rules (at least for me) didn't lend themselves very well to exposing any big reveals in diagrams. You just sort of needed to be mindful of all of them, which is a hard thing to do when you're taking a real LSAT.

[hndls022]

What tripped everyone up on the stained glass game so much? I remember there being a couple of conditional rules, but if you were atleast decent at applying formal logic it shouldn't have been as horrible as I've been hearing.


Conferences however...were an immediate skip.

All of that's true regarding the rules, but still, the nature of the game was among the more difficult types (I don't think I can say which one for fear of the mods) and the rules (at least for me) didn't lend themselves very well to exposing any big reveals in diagrams. You just sort of needed to be mindful of all of them, which is a hard thing to do when you're taking a real LSAT.

Yes I'm sure the anxiety played a factor for a lot of test takers. That can cause problems with a game that is largely based on conditional situations.

[Sandro]

Thats the thing. In addition to not having any super inferences these games require lots of hypos = lots of time. Time is a killer. LGB is awesome for setups but when it comes to making those inferences in the limited timeframe its hard, especially if they aren't obvious.

[FlanSolo]

Yes I'm sure the anxiety played a factor for a lot of test takers. That can cause problems with a game that is largely based on conditional situations.

Anxiety is always a part of it, but I didn't mean to suggest that would be as important a part as just the nature of the game itself.

It seems like in a lot of games, you run through the rules in the beginning, find inferences, and those inferences give you a relatively solid framework for answering the rest of the questions. In this one, there were definitely some inferences, but none of them seemed to unlock the game in any meaningful way. Rather, it seemed like there were just a bunch of different situations where you needed to reapply everything the game gave you, and that is a difficult and time consuming thing to do.