RodionRaskolnikov wrote:fronkman wrote:Rodion can you please explain how good text takers got swindled but bad test takers got a boost from extra space?
Sure. I'l use a golf example. Suppose there are two golfers: Tiger Woods and some random person who barely played golf. When they go to play golf, Tiger Woods has enough expertise and practice to see nearly every minute detail of the game. Is the wind too fast for 45 degree shot? Is the ground too steep to put the ball a foot to the left? And so on. The person who barely played doesn't see those details. He/She perhaps just sees the ball, the club, and the hole far off in the distance. When they hit the ball, both get a hole in one. But, Tiger Woods has seen all the intricacies that went into it. He took the wind, ground level, crowd noise, type of club, club weight, amount of sunlight, and everything that might affect his swing into consideration and by dealing with all those he got the hole in one. But, the guy who barely played golf just swung and hit the ball. He didn't even know any of the things that went into it. He simply swung and hit a hole in one. Now, if one of the things Tiger Woods takes into consideration unexpectedly changes, Tiger Woods will notice it far more than the guy who barely plays golf. It will alter his gameplay, might even fluster him, while the latter guy doesn't flinch. The same goes with good LSAT test takers who see far more little intricacies in the test than a normal test taker. They're the ones who notice the key words, the phrasing, and the extra space much more than the guy who just goes in to take the LSAT but is relatively average.
LOL as a highly competitive golfer I am ashamed of this analogy.