What are your chances of getting each experimental section?

[NoWorries]

Is it an even 1/3 chance at getting LG/LR/RC or are you more likely to get LR?

[Otunga]

I don't like the prospect of seeing a 'weird' game (in other words, a game that isn't explicitly grouping, linear, or some combination) and then defaulting to the mindset of 'Eh, it's just an experimental!' when it's actually a section that counts.

I'm inclined to think LG is more likely an experimental, mainly because it seems reasonable for them to want to try out new game types, but I really have no idea.

In general, and this goes to anybody, are experimentals only marginally different than actual sections or do they tend to 'give themselves away'?

[TheMostDangerousLG]

I don't like the prospect of seeing a 'weird' game (in other words, a game that isn't explicitly grouping, linear, or some combination) and then defaulting to the mindset of 'Eh, it's just an experimental!' when it's actually a section that counts.

I'm inclined to think LG is more likely an experimental, mainly because it seems reasonable for them to want to try out new game types, but I really have no idea.

In general, and this goes to anybody, are experimentals only marginally different than actual sections or do they tend to 'give themselves away'?

I had an experimental LR, and I still don't know which one it was.

I don't think anyone knows what the likelihood is of getting any particular section as your experimental; as far as I know, that information hasn't been released. I don't know if there's an anecdotal consensus though.

[nyjets2090]

I would think that you have a slightly higher chance of getting a LR experimental. The point of experimental sections is to test out questions for future tests and because there are 50-51 LR questions compared to 26-27 RC or 22-23 LG they need to test more LR questions.

Treat every section as if it's real.

[wtrc]

I had RC.

While LR seems most likely by numbers, LR is, more than the others, pretty much the same few question types with different variables. I feel like LG and RC need to be tested more.

[jselson]

I don't like the prospect of seeing a 'weird' game (in other words, a game that isn't explicitly grouping, linear, or some combination) and then defaulting to the mindset of 'Eh, it's just an experimental!' when it's actually a section that counts.

I'm inclined to think LG is more likely an experimental, mainly because it seems reasonable for them to want to try out new game types, but I really have no idea.

In general, and this goes to anybody, are experimentals only marginally different than actual sections or do they tend to 'give themselves away'?

I was sure my first LG section was the real deal, and the second (and final) section was experimental, so I forgot to time myself for the last one until ten minutes through. Turns out I was wrong. (Still aced it, though )

The only really difficult question was the final one of the first section. It was a complicated hypo/rule switch, which I've always had trouble with. Had to go with my best guess. But neither section was more difficult or strange than any PT I'd taken. I'd really recommend taking the early LGs as full, timed sections, since they tend to have more "creative" set-ups (which help you think more creatively in solving them) then the later 90s/2000s ones, where things are really rote. LSAT's recently gone back to one "creative" set-up per LG section, so be prepped for that. But I think they're more fun.

[jingosaur]

On the December 2012 test, I though my LG section was the experimental one until I saw my second RC section. I correctly guessed which one was the experimental one, but I agree with everyone else in that you never know for sure.

[Clearly]

I had RC.

While LR seems most likely by numbers, LR is, more than the others, pretty much the same few question types with different variables. I feel like LG and RC need to be tested more.

Its not about what question types need to be tested. Every single question in the LSAT is derived from experimental questions. The point is to see the trends in how students do on them. Supposedly they will throw out questions if too many weak students get it right while too many 170s get it wrong, etc. That's not to say that each question type gets equal exposure, just realize that no question "bypasses" the experimental section just because its been done before.

[sublime]

..

[itachiuchiha]

it is best to not even think about what is experimental and just treat all sections equally

[Jeffort]

it is best to not even think about what is experimental and just treat all sections equally

^this. Absolutely zero thoughts should be wasted wondering about the experimental section until after you have finished taking the test. Thinking about it before and especially during the test can only hurt you.