Post removed. Forum

[PourMeTea]

Post removed.

[SteelPenguin]

i'm disappointed by quality of the original post. Please include the rules!

[Mojosodope]

fuckin Discussed books pissed me off

[Hotguy]

Just got out. Relax a bit. I ll put it in a few.

[neprep]

Edit the name to December 2013 LSAT waiting thread. Makes it easier for people to find it in later years.

[Hotguy]

Edit the name to December 2013 LSAT waiting thread. Makes it easier for people to find it in later years.

Will do

[SteelPenguin]

This is a warning. This is likely your only warning; you are unlikely to receive any further warnings.

Please be advised that discussion or solicitation (including, but not limited to, PMs and online chatrooms) of any questions or answers from the October 2013 LSAT with anything more than an extremely broad level of specificity will result in a temporary or permanent ban. This may include a permanent ban on your IPs if necessary, which will block you from even viewing the TLS forums. Permanent IP address bans for LSAT discussion have been issued in the past.

Examples have been included for your reference below. This is not an exhaustive list. It is not a defense to say that your overly-specific discussion of an LSAT question did not exactly mirror one of the examples - you will still be banned. Linking to other online materials/discussion of the LSAT questions is also prohibited.

Please note that you agreed not to discuss specific LSAT questions and answers when you completed your signing statement when taking the test. The LSAC considers it a violation to discuss specific questions and answers; the LSAC will act accordingly upon discovering discussion of specific questions and answers. Be advised that the LSAC and its agents monitor this board.

Analytical Reasoning Example wrote:
1. Games were hard. Okay.
2. Yeah, on the second question for the second game, I wasn't sure if C was just on Tuesdays or Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Ban.
3. No, the order is ACDBBE. Ban.
4. What about Question Four? If C can't go on Tuesdays, then it has to be Wednesday right? Ban.
5. You guys are stupid. The answer to Question Four and Five is D. Ban.
6. No, the answers are CDAABE. Ban.
7. C'mon guys. How can you not know all of the answers? Ban.

Logical Reasoning Example wrote:
1. I thought the LR sections weren't too difficult. Okay.
2. What answers did you all get for the coffee growers question? Ban.
3. I got A. Ban.
4. That's weird, I thought it was either B or D. Ban.
5. But it was a parallel reasoning problem. Ban.
6. Damn it, I knew I should have picked B. Ban.
7. Hold on guys, I think the mods might get upset if we keep this up. Never a good sign.
8. Let's trick them by disguising what we're saying. So, hypothetically, if I were a coffee grower..... Ban.
9. You would be displeased with government regulation of pesticides. Ban.
10. But not price controls. Ban.
11. Is that because, hypothetically, price controls would raise prices and revenue? Ban.
12. It's just a cost problem in general. If you were a coffee grower, the legal pesticides would, hypothetically, cost more. Ban.
13. Whoa, it's just like Question 13 from the second LR section in PT 39. Ban.
14. Guys, maybe we should create a chatroom to discuss this. I started one: tinychat.com/letscheatontheLSAT Ban.
15. If you guys could PM me about this, that'd be great. Ban.

Please note that this warning applies to the Reading Comprehension section as well as the writing sample.

If you are in doubt as to whether your drafted post will run afoul of this warning, do not submit the post. You have been warned.

[Bobzilla]

Most obvious LR experimental ever? Or maybe it wasn't :O

[Otunga]

LG got me. Answered B randomly on the last two, and I doubt I got the rule sub questions right.

[Mojosodope]

Most obvious LR experimental ever? Or maybe it wasn't :O

definitely, with the old school questions?

[nooooo]

fuckin Discussed books pissed me off

Thought it was discussed speeches. Regardless, yea, that sucked.

I'll get the ball rolling. I'm posting what I saw allowed last waiting thread, if it's too much I'll happily edit:

LG-LR1-RC-RC-LR2

If history is any indicator (and God do I hope it is), my pre-break RC was experimental. All I'll say is "paternalism".

[taks7]

All I can say right now is I am never looking in the mirror again.

Any idea what the real LG was?

[Mojosodope]

fuckin Discussed books pissed me off

Thought it was discussed speeches. Regardless, yea, that sucked.

I'll get the ball rolling. I'm posting what I saw allowed last waiting thread, if it's too much I'll happily edit:

LG-LR1-RC-RC-LR2

If history is any indicator (and God do I hope it is), my pre-break RC was experimental. All I'll say is "paternalism".

Yeah that wasn't in the real one.

The real one had one about Online Gaming

[Mojosodope]

All I can say right now is I am never looking in the mirror again.

Any idea what the real LG was?

Discussed speeches

[SteelPenguin]

Just got out. Relax a bit. I ll put it in a few.

my bad, didn't realize you were a dec taker. I put the rules in a post a few above this, it'd probably be a good idea to c/p into main topic to avoid bans.

[Hotguy]

Lg was so easy that I thought it was experimental at the time lol

LR1 was tough for me. Was freaking out for the first section. Read the stim for question one like 9 times lol

[NanaP]

LG was tough.....LR LG RC LR RC.....

[Otunga]

I had RC exp so we can clear things up with what's real and what's not.

And yes, paternalism was fake. Other people didn't have it. I did think most of the passages were very interesting.

[wtrc]

Be careful about posting i/r/t specific topics here. Imagine that someone will be taking this same LSAT in a week. Anything posted that can help them can result in LSAC getting mad.

Hope it went well, all!

OP, might want to include a "guess the curve" poll in the thread.

[nooooo]

fuckin Discussed books pissed me off

Thought it was discussed speeches. Regardless, yea, that sucked.

I'll get the ball rolling. I'm posting what I saw allowed last waiting thread, if it's too much I'll happily edit:

LG-LR1-RC-RC-LR2

If history is any indicator (and God do I hope it is), my pre-break RC was experimental. All I'll say is "paternalism".

Yeah that wasn't in the real one.

The real one had one about Online Gaming

You've made me the happiest man alive. I'll take mirrors over that RC any day, Jesus Christ.

[NanaP]

LG was tough.....LR LG RC LR RC.....

Let me clear this, it wasn't bad but one confused me...

[Mojosodope]

Be careful about posting i/r/t specific topics here. Imagine that someone will be taking this same LSAT in a week. Anything posted that can help them can result in LSAC getting mad.

Hope it went well, all!

OP, might want to include a "guess the curve" poll in the thread.

They take a different test

[nsh0705]

D

[Hotguy]

All I can say right now is I am never looking in the mirror again.

Any idea what the real LG was?

Discussed speeches

Omg im so happy to hear mirrors!!

No worries steel, no way to know that I was a taker.

Pool coming. Still driving..

[wtrc]

Be careful about posting i/r/t specific topics here. Imagine that someone will be taking this same LSAT in a week. Anything posted that can help them can result in LSAC getting mad.

Hope it went well, all!

OP, might want to include a "guess the curve" poll in the thread.

They take a different test

I'm aware. But LSAC is strict enough (as are the mods) that if, guessing whether or not something should be publicly said, that is a good indicator.