People who thought this test was easy

dba415
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:50 pm

People who thought this test was easy

Postby dba415 » Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:18 am

Do they exist?

Seems like everyone is complaining about the test, the dumb !Kung and Zones for sure, but did anyone find this test easy?

Seems like with the amount of people scoring upwards of 175 on here on PTs, there has to be some folks with this opinion.

rakeshow
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 5:26 pm

Re: People who thought this test was easy

Postby rakeshow » Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:46 am

i wouldnt necessarily say it was easy, but i definitely didnt think it was terrible. i think when future people work on PT67 they wont think it was too bad. this is just what happens on test day for many people.

and both sections of LR specifically seemed to be easier than most, and many people seem to be overlooking that. it'll definitely help a lot of people since they will probably score at the top end of their LR PT averages.

helpplease
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:12 pm

Re: People who thought this test was easy

Postby helpplease » Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:46 am

I've never scored higher than a 167 on a PT, but I thought this test was definitely easy relative to other ones. I'm not sure if it actually is or whether it was just the confidence that made it appear so.

Also, I thought the RC section was one of the easiest sections I've ever done. Zones were annoying and that messed up my last LR section but overall I thought the test was not difficult. This is going to be a long 3 weeks!

User avatar
Cobretti
Posts: 2560
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:45 am

Re: People who thought this test was easy

Postby Cobretti » Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:25 am

rakeshow wrote:i wouldnt necessarily say it was easy, but i definitely didnt think it was terrible. i think when future people work on PT67 they wont think it was too bad. this is just what happens on test day for many people.

and both sections of LR specifically seemed to be easier than most, and many people seem to be overlooking that. it'll definitely help a lot of people since they will probably score at the top end of their LR PT averages.


I agree with this. The game really was difficult, there's no denying that. But the both LRs were easier than normal. I think I may have missed a point or two on LG (which hasn't happened on a PT in months, so its still frustrating...), but I very well could have gone -0 on LR; so it evens out. Time will tell though.

vegso
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:08 pm

Re: People who thought this test was easy

Postby vegso » Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:09 am

I dont remember that !Kung passage being hard, but I also don't really remember anything about the RC section at all. God bless auto pilot, hopefully that doesnt turn out to be a bad thing. Overall though the test seemed fair, not crazy, not easy

Nat Sherman
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: People who thought this test was easy

Postby Nat Sherman » Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:58 am

I thought RC was the easiest one I've seen since the PTs in 30s. LR almost seemed like a joke... I kept thinking there was no way it was not experimental because of how easy it was. Was able to go through both sections almost twice in the 35 min. LG I felt wasn't hard just different. Felt like they were more so testing your ability to adapt more than anything. I walked out of the test scared shitless that it was going to have a -5 curve, but reading the forums seems the complete opposite.

I will say though, I got the best arrangement of sections based on how I normally perform. LG-RC-LR-LR-LG

jjrialva
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:59 pm

Re: People who thought this test was easy

Postby jjrialva » Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:59 am

The difficult LG and 2 RC passages where compensated by below average LRs. I finished both LR with spare time and confident about almost everything. I probably had to guess between two choices in about 3-4 questions. The people at the LSAC can calibrate a test difficulty so it is similar to the test administered in the past few years. After that they always adjust the "curve". The only disadvantage I found on harder tests is that you have to be more aware of time management and not waste 12 minutes like I did in a game....

User avatar
VUSisterRayVU
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:57 pm

Re: People who thought this test was easy

Postby VUSisterRayVU » Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:38 am

Except for games, I felt like it was easy. RC was normal. There were a few tricky questions, but nothing outside the realm of average. Certainly not easier than normal, though. LR was a cakewalk. No problems at all with it. I don't know if it was objectively easier or if I'm more familiar with the patterns/writing of LR in the 60s now. I had found most recent LR pretty difficult until 65 and 66 and this was easier imo. It could be a combination of both, though, and there were some tricky questions but IDK if they were hard.

Games was objectively harder than before.

It'll be a better curve than June imo but I think -11 is more likely than -12.

User avatar
NoodleyOne
Posts: 2358
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: People who thought this test was easy

Postby NoodleyOne » Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:03 am

I walked out thinking this was one of the easiest tests I've seen. I thought zones wasnt tough and everything else rather standqrd and was expecting a -9- -10 curve. I think that may be because i was really in the zone (lol) and super prepared though. Even hearing the complaints it's hard for me to see the difficulty. I'm probably wrong about the difficulty though... i just feel super confident.

Watch me end up with a 170.

ht2988
Posts: 482
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 11:07 pm

Re: People who thought this test was easy

Postby ht2988 » Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:06 am

I walked out feeling very confident and proud of myself. There were 4-5 questions I had to decide between 2 equally compelling choices, but the rest seemed ver straightforward. I can honestly say that regardless of the outcome, I did my best!
Last edited by ht2988 on Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
RCinDNA
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 1:55 pm

Re: People who thought this test was easy

Postby RCinDNA » Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:06 am

NoodleyOne wrote:I walked out thinking this was one of the easiest tests I've seen. I thought zones wasnt tough and everything else rather standqrd and was expecting a -9- -10 curve. I think that may be because i was really in the zone (lol) and super prepared though. Even hearing the complaints it's hard for me to see the difficulty. I'm probably wrong about the difficulty though... i just feel super confident.

Watch me end up with a 170.


The only thing I thought was hard was the credited games section, so you may hit your target.

User avatar
mqt
Posts: 2153
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 11:52 pm

Re: People who thought this test was easy

Postby mqt » Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:51 am

Definitely thought the second LR was legitimately easy, and the other one wasn't bad at all. The RC and LG weren't overly awful, so I think this test was easier than a large number of the recent ones.

dba415
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:50 pm

Re: People who thought this test was easy

Postby dba415 » Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:12 pm

My own impressions of the test were that the two LRs were both easy, I had zero problems with either of them, and am hopeful I get a -0 on both but it's somewhat unlikely.

LG were easy besides the last game, which I have missed at least 4 qs on in all probablity

RC though, I thought was hard. The exp RC was super super easy.

I think what happened was that the real RC was my first section, and I wasn't truly warmed up, adding up was the troubling !Kung passage that caught me off guard, I couldn't recover.

I'd be lucky to miss only 6 on that RC, which means At best I can hope for a -10 and a large curve which would put me at a 172.

I would seriously be thrilled with this.

User avatar
Chardee_MacDennis
Posts: 285
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 11:26 am

Re: People who thought this test was easy

Postby Chardee_MacDennis » Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:32 pm

I didn't think the test was too bad. To me, games were easy; I had enough time to go back and recheck all my answers. LR was standard, and, compared to Dec '11 (the last exam I took), RC was considerably easier.

Immediately after an exam everyone's going to experience such a wide range of emotions that its tough to accurately assess the difficulty.

It's all relative.

User avatar
sanjola
Posts: 479
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: People who thought this test was easy

Postby sanjola » Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:40 pm

ht2988 wrote:I walked out feeling very confident and proud of myself. There were 4-5 questions I had to decide between 2 equally compelling choices, but the rest seemed ver straightforward. I can honestly say that regardless of the outcome, I did my best!


I LOVE your avatar!

User avatar
twenty
Posts: 3153
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:17 pm

Re: People who thought this test was easy

Postby twenty » Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:43 pm

My friend and I both walked out of the LSAT feeling like it would be a -9 or -8. RC is usually my worst section, and I'm certain I did no worse than -3. Games weren't tough, they were just long and dumb. LR was pretty easy, minus a few notable questions. This was by and large one of the easiest LSATs I've taken.

beautyistruth
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:23 am

Re: People who thought this test was easy

Postby beautyistruth » Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:52 pm

Is there typically this much negativity on the boards after an LSAT? I felt like I did pretty poorly on the games, but I felt that it could just have been a combination of me losing my head and being weak at games in general. What were the boards like after the June test?
Last edited by beautyistruth on Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Pereos
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 6:32 pm

Re: People who thought this test was easy

Postby Pereos » Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:55 pm

This was my third administration and I can definitely say it was the easiest. I am not like most TSLers who score in the 170+'s. I PT'd around 165-167 and did terrible on my first and second actual LSATs due to nerves (mid to high 150's, respectively). I took the June 2010 and October 2011 tests if it helps. I knew this test was my last and knew that the only thing that I could do to improve was to tackle my nerves so that I could perform close to my PT averages. I couldn't have been happier with the test and how I performed because I walked out feeling like I CRUSHED it just like Noodley; and by CRUSH I mean that I did significantly better than any of my PTs. I know this because I struggled with time management on most of my PTs and of course on the real LSATs. However, yesterday I finished all five sections with at least 2-5 minutes to go back and review, and have never been as confident in my answers as I was yesterday.

I am ALSO in the same boat as Noodley in that I dominated the LG section. I flew past the first three games (easy) and had around 15 minutes on the infamous "zones" game. (To put this in perspective, I generally take the allotted 8:45 minutes per LG game on all of my past PTs, and even bombed a game on each of my actual LSATs). Now the zones game was definitely "different," but I approached it just as Noodley did. I diagrammed what I could but then attacked the questions. I jumped around the questions to answer any of the ones that would force me to draw hypos and then used those hypos to answer the remaining questions. I finished the game and had at least 5 minutes to go back and review answers. I do not deny that it was unusual and I definitely had to read the stimulus a couple of times to ensure that I understood the separation correctly, but other than that I had little difficulty on it. I made the mistake on the Oct 2011 LSAT in equivocating the word "field" in that game and felt that LSAC was extremely ambiguous with that one. This was the game I bombed, so I wanted to make sure this administration to read and understand all of the rules and the initial stimuli.

I also felt that the RC was easier for me and this is historically my worst section. I was -12 on both past LSATs, embarrassing I know. However, on this one I would not be surprised if I got under a -4.

I agree with Noodly that the game was completely doable if you were able to keep calm and focus. I also am having a hard time remembering why everyone thinks the !Kung passage was so difficult? Could a punctuation mark throw someone off that bad? Here's to hoping that I break the 170's for the first time.

User avatar
Elahrairah
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:07 am

Re: People who thought this test was easy

Postby Elahrairah » Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:10 pm

So I've just woken up from my twelve hour post-LSAT nap and I feel great. Much, much better than I did in June. Unlike recent PTs, I was able to make quick, useful inferences in all of the games (including Zones), LR was broadly easy (with the exception of perhaps one or two wacky questions like Suspects and Science Fiction), and RC, while demanding, was not a disaster. If I screwed up and went under 170, I screwed up really badly and in ways I could not anticipate. All in all, better than expected.

What you see here would make a good LR problem: people who had a rough time have a much greater interest in posting on these boards afterward, so they're going to be overrepresented. You could not conclude on the basis of what you see here that the October LSAT was especially difficult.

User avatar
bitsy
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 8:06 pm

Re: People who thought this test was easy

Postby bitsy » Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:26 pm

walked out smiling. i concur that the zones difficulty is likely overrepresented. no serious "what is this fuckery" moments in any section. i had just read the formal logic chapter of the lrb the night before, which probably helped with the lr questions people found hard.

i didn't study on this board, so i'm not sure how to gauge the 170 cutoff number. tbh, i'm more interested in the 180 cutoff (general interest, not assuming that i'd qualify for such a thing).

JDot
Posts: 82
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2012 2:41 pm

Re: People who thought this test was easy

Postby JDot » Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:27 pm

I'm usually good at LG and I thought that section was hard for some reason, other than that I thought the LR and RC was (or seemed) pretty easy...felt unusually confident walking out, minus the games section...we'll see

User avatar
Steve2207
Posts: 253
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2012 6:31 pm

Re: People who thought this test was easy

Postby Steve2207 » Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:30 pm

This is a bit off topic but did we ever find out which LR was the experimental? I had LR, RC, LR, LR, LG. Im hoping like hell part one wasnt experimental because I feel very confident that I got all, or close to all of them right.

User avatar
Elahrairah
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:07 am

Re: People who thought this test was easy

Postby Elahrairah » Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:23 pm

Steve2207 wrote:This is a bit off topic but did we ever find out which LR was the experimental? I had LR, RC, LR, LR, LG. Im hoping like hell part one wasnt experimental because I feel very confident that I got all, or close to all of them right.


Me too; I felt the same way. Unfortunately, the consensus is that the first one was experimental.

msmith29
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 12:19 am

Re: People who thought this test was easy

Postby msmith29 » Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:57 pm

Thought it was an average test, I don't agree with everyone who says it was hard

User avatar
CyanIdes Of March
Posts: 743
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: People who thought this test was easy

Postby CyanIdes Of March » Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:14 pm

Damn looks like I should have taken this test. Hopefully December is comparable.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: greatspirit, RPlatt85 and 5 guests