So How Was It? Hard? Harder? Just what you expected?

User avatar
Malakai
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 11:18 pm

Re: So How Was It? Hard? Harder? Just what you expected?

Postby Malakai » Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:10 am

I had RC-RC-LR-LG-LR

Honestly I think that the first RC (which I think was the experimental) was one of the hardest RC's i've ever taken (Completed about 35 PT's leading up to exam day). Having two RC's in a row, with a really difficult and seemingly unrecognizable type of RC as the first, was pretty discouraging out of the jump. I also feel like this was a pretty different test than any of the PT's I had taken in terms of wording. Besides that, there were definitely alot more Justify, Necessary Assumption, and Disagree type Q's than most of the PT's I had taken. More Formal Logic as well.

As for LG, and though I know this has already been said, I also feel as though many deductions weren't there from the rules. This resulted in me definitely having to work faster and pencil-push a lot more than normal PTing. A previous poster suggested that there were limited possibilities for two? of the games, which kind of makes sense now that I think about it in retrospect.

Though I think I did fairly well overall, I think a retake would be more representative of my abilities. I think taking the other 30 or so more PT's would put me in an even better position in eliminating the unexpected for Oct 2012.

shntn
Posts: 5319
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:45 pm

Re: So How Was It? Hard? Harder? Just what you expected?

Postby shntn » Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:18 am

Malakai wrote:I had RC-RC-LR-LG-LR

Honestly I think that the first RC (which I think was the experimental) was one of the hardest RC's i've ever taken (Completed about 35 PT's leading up to exam day). Having two RC's in a row, with a really difficult and seemingly unrecognizable type of RC as the first, was pretty discouraging out of the jump. I also feel like this was a pretty different test than any of the PT's I had taken in terms of wording. Besides that, there were definitely alot more Justify, Necessary Assumption, and Disagree type Q's than most of the PT's I had taken. More Formal Logic as well.

As for LG, and though I know this has already been said, I also feel as though many deductions weren't there from the rules. This resulted in me definitely having to work faster and pencil-push a lot more than normal PTing. A previous poster suggested that there were limited possibilities for two? of the games, which kind of makes sense now that I think about it in retrospect.

Though I think I did fairly well overall, I think a retake would be more representative of my abilities. I think taking the other 30 or so more PT's would put me in an even better position in eliminating the unexpected for Oct 2012.

That's a ton of PT. Did you do the most recent or the older ones? I did about 20, but I stuck to the 20 most recent ones. The older tests may not be as similar to what you can expect to see on a real test today, but I guess the sheer volume of extra practice can only be beneficial.

MLBrandow
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: So How Was It? Hard? Harder? Just what you expected?

Postby MLBrandow » Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:13 pm

WokeUpInACar wrote:I'm just amazed at how so many people were flustered by having MORE space for LG



My first thought was "oh no, my test has a printing error!" My second thought was "More space, neat. Now let me do the games."

User avatar
PLXTDNR
Posts: 156
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 12:59 pm

Re: So How Was It? Hard? Harder? Just what you expected?

Postby PLXTDNR » Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:40 pm

I had LR-LR-RC-LR-LG

I wanted to shoot myself by the time I got to RC; it just sucks having to do nothing but theoretical, without some break to do the games. And then by the time I got to the games, I was so freaking mentally exhausted from having done nothing but 'theory' type brain-work, that I could barely get into gear to do the games - which were the most bizarre set of games I've ever seen. I think I knocked the LR out of the park (it's one of my best), got probably -7 on RC - which has NEVER happened to me (most was -4), and have NO idea on LG.

As far as the extra space goes, here's how it hurt me: I thought, OH YAY extra space! And then proceeded to use the extra space to re-diagram several times when I got in a tough spot, rather than focusing on the first diagram I'd drawn. Ate up time and I'm not a happy camper. :evil:

User avatar
UtilityMonster
Posts: 315
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 3:16 pm

Re: So How Was It? Hard? Harder? Just what you expected?

Postby UtilityMonster » Mon Jun 18, 2012 1:24 pm

Did anyone else find the first passage in RC to be the most difficult one? It was the one on publishing books.

User avatar
PLXTDNR
Posts: 156
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 12:59 pm

Re: So How Was It? Hard? Harder? Just what you expected?

Postby PLXTDNR » Mon Jun 18, 2012 1:53 pm

UtilityMonster wrote:Did anyone else find the first passage in RC to be the most difficult one? It was the one on publishing books.

No, I found the last one that I had about 4 minutes to tackle, to be the hardest. Largely because when I realized it was about nuclear fission my brain stopped functioning. Funny how those two words can affect me. It really felt like the proverbial LSAT nightmare. I kinda liked the digital publishing one - well, at least now. I guess we'll see when my score comes back.

User avatar
Philipsssssss
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:57 pm

Re: So How Was It? Hard? Harder? Just what you expected?

Postby Philipsssssss » Mon Jun 18, 2012 4:30 pm

sjwest wrote:Also, I must be the only person here that HATED the extra space on LG. It completely threw me off, and the visual disconnect between the questions on the right page versus my diagram on the left page killed my time.

Regardless, for those of you taking it in the future, be prepared for both possibilities. I'm not convinced this wasn't a fluke.

For those of you considering cancelling, reconsider. This was my 2nd take, and I felt like I completely bombed my first. I had consistently been doing 100% of LG and only got through two of them on test day. Missed 10 of 22. I still scored a 162, only a few points down from my average, because I did better than average on the LR and RC sections.

Don't cancel. Unless you're applying to schools that consider you by your average LSAT instead of the highest, don't cancel.


I canceled 2wice and kept my 3rd score of 164; got waitlisted at UVA and got a very good scholarship in a number of tier 1 schools and full ride in T2. If you feel like you messed up badly, canceling won't hurt.

User avatar
Malakai
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 11:18 pm

Re: So How Was It? Hard? Harder? Just what you expected?

Postby Malakai » Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:48 pm

That's a ton of PT. Did you do the most recent or the older ones? I did about 20, but I stuck to the 20 most recent ones. The older tests may not be as similar to what you can expect to see on a real test today, but I guess the sheer volume of extra practice can only be beneficial.


Half were from PT 7-40 and the other half were from 40-65. I'm going to do the other half, doing all of the older ones first with the remainder of the most recents leading up to Oct. I'm pretty sure i'm not the only person out there that has actually found this to be fun.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 34iplaw, Baidu [Spider], clueless801, jagerbom79 and 15 guests