OCT 2011 Experimental Section

User avatar
qbt1990
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 4:50 pm

Re: OCT 2011 Experimental Section

Postby qbt1990 » Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:43 am

zdamico wrote:
qbt1990 wrote:Ughhhh I just heard from my instructor that apparently the third section was the experimental, for everyone. I'm so irritated the 3LR people STILL don't know for sure :(


Not possible? My LRs went 25 26 25, and the 26 was the third section, with people with only 2 LRs saying they had a 26 and a 25.


I know, that's why I'm so confused. Maybe I sound crazy right now, but is it at all possible the LSAC mixed up questions in each section? So for example everyone has question A and B, but some people had A and B in the same section and others had it in different sections? I don't know, I'm just so confused because nothing is adding up right now :(

User avatar
rivermaker
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 2:16 pm

Re: OCT 2011 Experimental Section

Postby rivermaker » Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:45 am

Ughhhh I just heard from my instructor that apparently the third section was the experimental, for everyone. I'm so irritated the 3LR people STILL don't know for sure :(


I hope your instructor is right and i 99 percent agree with him/her, but what is the reasoning behind the 3rd being the experimental for everyone.

mezzajoy
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:18 am

Re: OCT 2011 Experimental Section

Postby mezzajoy » Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:36 am

pontificvsmaximvs wrote:
kindplus wrote:hula_girl said:
i had 2 lg's as well, but it's pretty much been decided here (and other threads) that the section with books on the shelves, ambassadors and bikes was the real section. i had a section A SPECIFIC CONFIGURATION - DO NOT POST THIS INFO


I understand but my problem is I don't remember which section had the books, ambassadors, & bikes. All I remember is the RSTVXU higher than game, which people havent really brought up yet. The section that had RSTVXU is the one I did very well in, which is why Im trying to figure it out..Anyone know?



I'm pretty sure that was the real one.



After hearing all that, i feel much better. i thought the 3LG would strangle me during the test.
cheers!

User avatar
derekc4
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 5:23 pm

Re: OCT 2011 Experimental Section

Postby derekc4 » Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:36 am

I would like to add that the fact that some people who only took two LR sections with 26 and 25 question sections does not indicate that the people who took three sections must have graded 25 and 26 question sections. LSAC removes questions from scoring all the time. This could reduce the number of LR questions to 50 combined, because we know the test could easily be 100 or 101 questions. No one knows anything for sure; so everyone who is worrying keep the faith and don't get discouraged.

We'll make it through! 170 or higher for everyone here!
Last edited by derekc4 on Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

anewaphorist
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 5:13 pm

Re: OCT 2011 Experimental Section

Postby anewaphorist » Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:39 am

I have a clear motive in backing the above posters when they say the 3rd section was experimental, but I also think that for people like me who had LR (25) LR (26) LR (26), the experimental HAS to be the 3rd section. It was considerably harder than the LR of the 1st and 4th sections, and would LSAC really give the experimental section first or immediately after the break? To me, such a policy would go beyond testing future questions to making a test-taker do a guinea-pig section when her concentration is at its highest, which is hardly an accurate gauge of the reliability of their test questions. And if the 1st LR was experimental, then the test must have contained 102 questions, which has happened only a couple of times in the last two decades. Aside from administering the experimental section last, which obviously would skew the accuracy of the scale conversion on future tests, LSAC could then only put the experimental 2nd or 3rd. 2nd for me and for many other people was the games section. The only other possibility, therefore, is the remote one that the 4th section was experimental. And this also seems specious. Think about it. If you've already taken the two scored LR sections and you're starting the 3rd experimental one, your concentration, focus, and LR mindset are in top form, and the questions will likely seem the easiest and quickest of any of the three sections. Not only that, but you would be taking it directly after the 15-minute break. Would LSAC determine the outcome of thousands of future admissions decisions with an LR section that students are markedly more prepared to take than those same students would be for any RC or LG experimental section? Making the experimental section the second LR section out of 3 is in keeping with the arrangement of other test-takers' LG and RC experimental sections, whether appearing 2nd, 3rd, or 4th, because in all cases students will not have had 2 "warm-up" sections before their experimental section of the same type. The most any test-taker could have is a single (read: scored) warm-up before an unscored RC or LG section.

barnum
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:41 pm

Re: OCT 2011 Experimental Section

Postby barnum » Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:49 am

We all seem to agree that they give multiple experimental sections at the same time, meaning some people have games, while others have reading comp, and still some have logical reasoning. If section were was a possible experimental section, doesn't it make sense that someone would have reported that they had an experimental games or RC in section 4 by now?

User avatar
rivermaker
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 2:16 pm

Re: OCT 2011 Experimental Section

Postby rivermaker » Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:50 am

I would like to add that the fact that some people who only took two LR sections with 26 and 25 question sections does not indicate that the people who took three sections must have graded 25 and 26 question sections. LSAC removes questions from scoring all the time. This could reduce the number of LR questions to 50 combined, because we know the test could easily be 100 or 101 questions. No one knows anything for sure; so everyone who is worrying keep the faith and don't get discouraged.


the reason is has to be 25 and 26 questions is because the people with LR LR and not LR LR LR had 25 and 26 questions and we are all taking the same test besides an experimental.

User avatar
derekc4
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 5:23 pm

Re: OCT 2011 Experimental Section

Postby derekc4 » Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:52 am

rivermaker wrote:
And if the 1st LR was experimental, then the test must have contained 102 questions,


I agree with most of what you are saying. I also agree it is possible for 102 question tests, but the reason is has to be 25 and 26 questions is because the people with LR LR and not LR LR LR had 25 and 26 questions and we are all taking the same test besides an experimental.


I agree with this, but remember they can remove questions from scoring. They do this fairly frequently, and this makes deduction difficult. Is it possible for them to have experimental questions mixed in with scored ones (ie in the same section)? Because if they can then guesswork is entirely useless.

User avatar
rivermaker
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 2:16 pm

Re: OCT 2011 Experimental Section

Postby rivermaker » Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:56 am

even if they remove questions from the exam. They would have to remove the same questions from every test obviously and we all HAVE TO have had the same exam. So someone with LR LR having 25 and 26 questions is proof that people with LR LR LR will have 25 and 26 as their graded sections. If they are grading 25 and 25 for some, and 25 and 26 for others that means we were taking different graded sections which is impossible.

User avatar
neeko
Posts: 942
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:41 pm

Re: OCT 2011 Experimental Section

Postby neeko » Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:32 am

derekc4 wrote:
rivermaker wrote:
And if the 1st LR was experimental, then the test must have contained 102 questions,


I agree with most of what you are saying. I also agree it is possible for 102 question tests, but the reason is has to be 25 and 26 questions is because the people with LR LR and not LR LR LR had 25 and 26 questions and we are all taking the same test besides an experimental.


I agree with this, but remember they can remove questions from scoring. They do this fairly frequently, and this makes deduction difficult. Is it possible for them to have experimental questions mixed in with scored ones (ie in the same section)? Because if they can then guesswork is entirely useless.


My deductions are not based off the number of questions. I have no clue about that. They are from question subject matter.

Granted, I am basing this off of what I have hard from people, but I talked to a lot of people, because I was pissed off. There is no way we will know for sure, but I am pretty confident in this. People have claimed they have RC exp in their 4th section too.

We will not know for 20+ more days for sure, but I know for sure that people had questions from my LR 1 and my LR 3 (4th section) that only had 2 LR. I had killer whales in my 4th section LR, some people had apes in mirrors and dogs and their masters in their 4th section. I did not have these questions, and I had 3 LR.

Take from it what you will, but we will only know with 100% certainty when we see the scores.

3FLryan
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:51 am

Re: OCT 2011 Experimental Section

Postby 3FLryan » Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:34 am

3v3ryth1ng wrote:
3FLryan wrote:My experimental was section 3 - RC. Had a BRUTAL comparative section. Was basically grasping at straws and praying it was experimental - was only able to skim the 4th passage and refer back to it while in high-alert-guessing-mode. Went in to break telling myself it was the experimental section - lo and behold, RC for section 4. At least something worked out.


Which topics came up on your experimental section? I've heard about dancing bees thus far.
My 1 and only RC was Mexican proverbs and Dostoevsky.


One topic in my experimental RC section was KIND OF TRICKY. I was thinking "crap this is EXACTLY the type of reading passage we might be expected to comprehend in actual law school, and here I am screwing it up". I had the "bees" too, but it was the 4th passage. I think bees would have been easy, but the comparative passage sucked all my time. Don't remember the other two topics.

(I'm new here and quite wary of discussing specifics - mods if my post is too specific please edit and let me know)
Last edited by 3FLryan on Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:36 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
neeko
Posts: 942
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:41 pm

Re: OCT 2011 Experimental Section

Postby neeko » Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:36 am

3FLryan wrote:
3v3ryth1ng wrote:
3FLryan wrote:My experimental was section 3 - RC. Had a BRUTAL comparative section. Was basically grasping at straws and praying it was experimental - was only able to skim the 4th passage and refer back to it while in high-alert-guessing-mode. Went in to break telling myself it was the experimental section - lo and behold, RC for section 4. At least something worked out.


Which topics came up on your experimental section? I've heard about dancing bees thus far.
My 1 and only RC was Mexican proverbs and Dostoevsky.


One topic in my experimental RC section was KIND OF TRICKY. I was thinking "crap this is EXACTLY the type of reading passage we might be expected to comprehend in actual law school, and here I am screwing it up". I had the "bees" too, but it was the 4th section. I think bees would have been easy, but the comparative passage sucked all my time.


So you had your experimental after the break, right?

3FLryan
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:51 am

Re: OCT 2011 Experimental Section

Postby 3FLryan » Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:38 am

neeko wrote:
3FLryan wrote:
3v3ryth1ng wrote:
3FLryan wrote:My experimental was section 3 - RC. Had a BRUTAL comparative section. Was basically grasping at straws and praying it was experimental - was only able to skim the 4th passage and refer back to it while in high-alert-guessing-mode. Went in to break telling myself it was the experimental section - lo and behold, RC for section 4. At least something worked out.


Which topics came up on your experimental section? I've heard about dancing bees thus far.
My 1 and only RC was Mexican proverbs and Dostoevsky.


One topic in my experimental RC section was KIND OF TRICKY. I was thinking "crap this is EXACTLY the type of reading passage we might be expected to comprehend in actual law school, and here I am screwing it up". I had the "bees" too, but it was the 4th section. I think bees would have been easy, but the comparative passage sucked all my time.


So you had your experimental after the break, right?


No, sorry for the confusion. RC 3rd section was my experimental, and it had bees. Just changed "4th section" to "4th passage" in my above post.

User avatar
nygrrrl
Posts: 4948
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:01 am

Re: OCT 2011 Experimental Section

Postby nygrrrl » Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:33 pm

3FLryan and others - yeah, we're getting a bit close to the edge on the specifics (3FL, edited your last post a bit) but it's funny: I was just about to put up a post thanking you guys for being so careful. The mod team really appreciates it! :D

(Oh and also? Congratulations, all - just getting through the LSAT is a big accomplishment. Now... on to PSs!)

User avatar
qbt1990
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 4:50 pm

Re: OCT 2011 Experimental Section

Postby qbt1990 » Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:17 pm

I hope the experimental LR was the third as well, but that still doesn't explain why I specifically remember the very long principle question in my 3rd section. Only explanation is if I'm not remembering things properly :/

User avatar
kingjones59
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 10:28 pm

Re: OCT 2011 Experimental Section

Postby kingjones59 » Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:39 pm

This has me baffled. There is no way my 3rd section could have been experimental because i had 3 LR and they went 25 26 25 (1,3,4) so if 3 was experimental I only have 100 questions. Ughhh this weighs huge on whether i should cancel or not

barnum
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:41 pm

Re: OCT 2011 Experimental Section

Postby barnum » Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:47 pm

kingjones59 wrote:This has me baffled. There is no way my 3rd section could have been experimental because i had 3 LR and they went 25 26 25 (1,3,4) so if 3 was experimental I only have 100 questions. Ughhh this weighs huge on whether i should cancel or not


Could have been section 1

User avatar
rivermaker
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 2:16 pm

Re: OCT 2011 Experimental Section

Postby rivermaker » Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:49 pm

king jones unless lsat has changed it and experimentals can now be on section 4 and 5, your exp should be sec1:25 sec3:26 sec4:25 = section 1 experimental sec1:25 sec3:26 sec3:26 = section 3 experimental. for all the people saying they think section 4 could have been it. I highly highly doubt it.

msu1077
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: OCT 2011 Experimental Section

Postby msu1077 » Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:50 pm

I've read all about the books, and bikes being the scored LG section, but my two LG sections are a blur as to which questions were in which. Does anyone recall a LG ...and here, the correct question would have been, "with crayons?" but what poster put forward was TOO MUCH INFORMATION. Sadly, 24 hours.

User avatar
neeko
Posts: 942
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:41 pm

Re: OCT 2011 Experimental Section

Postby neeko » Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:53 pm

msu1077 wrote:NO


No crayons on my exam.

Cmartin75077
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 8:59 am

Re: OCT 2011 Experimental Section

Postby Cmartin75077 » Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:03 pm

LG LR LG RC LR

The 2nd LG section was crazy difficult, NO DISCUSSING SPECIFICS OF THE QUESTIONS. 24 HOURS.

for RC I had mexican proverbs and dostoevsky, and for LR I had evolutionary psychology. Hope this helps.

Thanks for everyone's help, I was going to cancel my score bc I at first I could not decide which LG was exp, but now I am 95% sure it was section3, which is as sure as I can get on LSAT stuff anyway.

Good luck to the rest of you on determining the other exp sections.

deebleduh
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2011 8:49 pm

Re: OCT 2011 Experimental Section

Postby deebleduh » Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:08 pm

neeko wrote:
msu1077 wrote:NO


No crayons on mine either. I'm in the same boat, everything blurred together and I don't remember which one was which. Anyone remember the second game in the oceans/icebergs section?

User avatar
nygrrrl
Posts: 4948
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:01 am

Re: OCT 2011 Experimental Section

Postby nygrrrl » Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:11 pm

OK, since there seems to be some confusion about what is and is not permissible in terms of discussing the questions, I will repost this here. Also, please know that the 24 bans will shortly be upped to 1 week bans for people who continue to ignore these warnings. Thanks guys.


YCrevolution wrote:This is a warning. This is likely your only warning; you are unlikely to receive any further warnings.

Please be advised that discussion or solicitation (including, but not limited to, PMs and online chatrooms) of any questions or answers from the October 2011 LSAT with anything more than an extremely broad level of specificity will result in a temporary or permanent ban. This may include a permanent ban on your IPs if necessary, which will block you from even viewing the TLS forums. Permanent IP address bans for LSAT discussion have been issued in the past.

Examples have been included for your reference below. This is not an exhaustive list. It is not a defense to say that your overly-specific discussion of an LSAT question did not exactly mirror one of the examples - you will still be banned. Linking to other online materials/discussion of the LSAT questions is also prohibited.

Please note that you agreed not to discuss specific October 2011 LSAT questions and answers when you completed your signing statement when taking the test. The LSAC considers it a violation to discuss specific October 2011 LSAT questions and answers; the LSAC will act accordingly upon discovering discussion of specific October 2011 LSAT questions and answers. Be advised that the LSAC and its agents monitor this board.

Analytical Reasoning Example wrote:1. Games were hard. Okay.
2. Yeah, on the second question for the second game, I wasn't sure if C was just on Tuesdays or Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Ban.
3. No, the order is ACDBBE. Ban.
4. What about Question Four? If C can't go on Tuesdays, then it has to be Wednesday right? Ban.
5. You guys are stupid. The answer to Question Four and Five is D. Ban.
6. No, the answers are CDAABE. Ban.
7. C'mon guys. How can you not know all of the answers? Ban.

Logical Reasoning Example wrote:1. I thought the LR sections weren't too difficult. Okay.
2. What answers did you all get for the coffee growers question? Ban.
3. I got A. Ban.
4. That's weird, I thought it was either B or D. Ban.
5. But it was a parallel reasoning problem. Ban.
6. Damn it, I knew I should have picked B. Ban.
7. Hold on guys, I think the mods might get upset if we keep this up. Never a good sign.
8. Let's trick them by disguising what we're saying. So, hypothetically, if I were a coffee grower..... Ban.
9. You would be displeased with government regulation of pesticides. Ban.
10. But not price controls. Ban.
11. Is that because, hypothetically, price controls would raise prices and revenue? Ban.
12. It's just a cost problem in general. If you were a coffee grower, the legal pesticides would, hypothetically, cost more. Ban.
13. Whoa, it's just like Question 13 from the second LR section in PT 39. Ban.
14. Guys, maybe we should create a chatroom to discuss this. I started one: tinychat.com/letscheatontheLSAT Ban.
15. If you guys could PM me about this, that'd be great. Ban.

Please note that this warning applies to the Reading Comprehension section as well as the writing sample.

If you are in doubt as to whether your drafted post will run afoul of this warning, do not submit the post. You have been warned.

grsyangl
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:55 pm

Re: OCT 2011 Experimental Section

Postby grsyangl » Mon Oct 03, 2011 3:18 pm

wouldn't the process of elimination help in this situation? For example, has anyone that had the LG, or RC section, as experimental confirmed their 1st section to be the experimental?

consider for a moment that the makers of the LSAT strive for consistency. If they place an experimental test --of any section(LR,LG,RC)--1st, then all of the other sections have the possibility of being placed before the scored section. However, I have yet to see any of the LG/RC testers confirm that their exp. was before the scored section...
It seems appropriate to assume that the test-takers with 3 LR sections would not have the exp. before the scored.(or first)

What do y'all think?

If we can confirm-with a level of certainty- that there is not a exp. as the first test, then we can start to eliminate more possibilities of the LR exp...

User avatar
kingjones59
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 10:28 pm

Re: OCT 2011 Experimental Section

Postby kingjones59 » Mon Oct 03, 2011 3:57 pm

My problem is, if they strove for consistency they would put everyone's experimental in the same section, like they used to do. But now this is not the case




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 5 guests