I noticed 3link's spreadsheet was gone. Can LSATQA do.. Forum

[M.M.]

.. a visual representation of types of questions you get wrong, easily? I primarily used 3link's spreadsheet to identify which LR question types I was weak on so that I could then drill them. I have an LSATQA account, but it seem that I have to enter every answer in in (pencil it in by clicking A,B,C,D, or E on their site) in order to find out which question types I got wrong and thus which ones I often get wrong. This is tedious. It seems that I could just as easily keep an excel spreadsheet with a tally of the types of questions. Or am I just LSATQA illiterate?

(By the way, there really should be more room for characters in thread titles...)

[bilbaosan]

Yes, LsatQA could do it. Here's how it looks like: http://i44.tinypic.com/15f56jr.jpg

And yes, you need to enter your answers there. However it comes with a bunch of benetifs such as:

- it also checks them for you, so you know instantly how many you got right;
- it can show you which answers are wrong but without showing you the correct one, so you can find those yourself;
- it has the "question difficulty" for each question, which allows you to make funny conclusion (such as philosophy questions are way easier for the site audience than science questions);

I've been using it for last two months, and switching to it from a spreadsheet was one of the best decisions, even though I lost around five prior tests which I didn't bother to type in.

[Clearly]

.. a visual representation of types of questions you get wrong, easily? I primarily used 3link's spreadsheet to identify which LR question types I was weak on so that I could then drill them. I have an LSATQA account, but it seem that I have to enter every answer in in (pencil it in by clicking A,B,C,D, or E on their site) in order to find out which question types I got wrong and thus which ones I often get wrong. This is tedious. It seems that I could just as easily keep an excel spreadsheet with a tally of the types of questions. Or am I just LSATQA illiterate?

(By the way, there really should be more room for characters in thread titles...)

I'm good with not longer thread titles. Why not write a coherent short title, and save the question for the post, you don't have to post the entire question as the title...

[M.M.]

Yes, LsatQA could do it. Here's how it looks like: http://i44.tinypic.com/15f56jr.jpg

And yes, you need to enter your answers there. However it comes with a bunch of benetifs such as:

- it also checks them for you, so you know instantly how many you got right;
- it can show you which answers are wrong but without showing you the correct one, so you can find those yourself;
- it has the "question difficulty" for each question, which allows you to make funny conclusion (such as philosophy questions are way easier for the site audience than science questions);

I've been using it for last two months, and switching to it from a spreadsheet was one of the best decisions, even though I lost around five prior tests which I didn't bother to type in.

Those are benefits... but I just find filling in every bubble really annoying to be honest. Guess I'll just put up with it, as the "shows you which answers are wrong without showing you the correct one" could definitely help (rarely though). I guess if I sat there with LSATQA open and filled in bubbles rather than filling in bubbles on a paper it'd be similar enough and not waste time? I'm probably worried about almost no time, meh.

I'm good with not longer thread titles. Why not write a coherent short title, and save the question for the post, you don't have to post the entire question as the title...

I often find it hard to write a short coherent thread title (for example, pls give me two examples as to how I was supposed to convey my question in this thread's title), and it is important for people scanning the forum to be able to see the main message of the thread if they're to efficiently find topics they can reply / relate to, rather than having to check every thread / sometimes be mislead by thread titles. I've been on many other forums that allowed 4-5x times the space for characters and it didn't seem like problems resulted from it, so there seems little reason not to (unless it's simply a forum limitation which would seem odd).

[M.M.]

One more question if you don't mind. I just entered a section (PT 15, section 3) in for logical reasoning and found the "accuracy by type" charts. My problem is, I only plan to do one section per PT up until PT 40 or so. This is causing LSATQA to register many of my omitted sections, and is thus skewing my "accuracy by type" charts. Do you know if there is a way to not count omitted sections in this way?

[neprep]

One more question if you don't mind. I just entered a section (PT 15, section 3) in for logical reasoning and found the "accuracy by type" charts. My problem is, I only plan to do one section per PT up until PT 40 or so. This is causing LSATQA to register many of my omitted sections, and is thus skewing my "accuracy by type" charts. Do you know if there is a way to not count omitted sections in this way?

Well, obviously. LSATQA is designed to grade the entire test, not specific sections.

Looking forward, you should reach out to them and see if a section-specific approach is viable without compromising the metrics.