Scored 176

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
Joshcdw

New
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:26 am

Scored 176

Postby Joshcdw » Sun Apr 22, 2018 6:31 pm

I scored into the 175-180 range on exam 65. I think I have a good grasp of the exam. It's a dry familiar feeling similar to the feeling of reviewing a finished personal statement you wrote. You know because you wrote it, so you are looking at it again and are done with it.

So the words of the exam are not hard, they're just words. Reading comprehension 24/27; Games 23/23; Logical Reasoning 23/25 and 24/26. Anyone have tips for Yale?

sparkytrainer

Silver
Posts: 765
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 12:32 am

Re: Scored 176

Postby sparkytrainer » Sun Apr 22, 2018 7:36 pm

If I had a dollar for each person who scores a 175+ on a practice exam and then comes back asking for chances with a 164, I would be a rich person.
Good for a practice test, but you need to score that on a real thing. You do not have a 176, you have a practice 176. I say that as someone who was pting 178-180 and didn't score that on my first or second try.

sparkytrainer

Silver
Posts: 765
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 12:32 am

Re: Scored 176

Postby sparkytrainer » Sun Apr 22, 2018 7:37 pm

Also LSAT 65 isn't equivalent to the current test. The current test is significantly harder on RC and games have gotten harder as well

User avatar
laker

New
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:52 am

Re: Scored 176

Postby laker » Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:56 pm

Definitely a good place to be at, now just keep PTing and work on consistently getting in that range. Of course a PT score might not necessarily reflect what score you will get on the real thing, but consistently scoring in the 175-180 range is an excellent spot to be in going into the exam.

I would recommend reading The Economist or NYT Opinion articles in your free time to continue improving your RC, and of course to thoroughly blind review your PTs on all sections and see if you can pull out any weaknesses. Keep up the good work!

chad2

New
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 1:36 pm

Re: Scored 176

Postby chad2 » Wed May 30, 2018 2:36 pm

sparkytrainer wrote:If I had a dollar for each person who scores a 175+ on a practice exam and then comes back asking for chances with a 164, I would be a rich person.
Good for a practice test, but you need to score that on a real thing. You do not have a 176, you have a practice 176. I say that as someone who was pting 178-180 and didn't score that on my first or second try.


Are you sure you aren't just upset that you didn't score as high on the test as you had on your practice tests?

If OP can get their score consistently in that range within the time limit then it's a probably a reasonably good predictor of how they'll do on the test. And I do not accept the premise that the minimal amount of noise/stress involved in taking the real thing is generally sufficient to bump you down more than a point or two -- certainly not from a 175+ to a 164. I also don't accept your suggestion that the test is appreciably more difficult today than it was 5-7 years ago (at least not enough to negate the significance of a preptest score from a 7 year-old test, lol), and would be immensely curious to hear what your actual evidence is for this beyond personal testimony, or that "people say so." Even conceding for the sake of argument that the tests today are harder than the ones OP has taken, what is your additional evidence that this increased difficulty is not compensated for in a more lenient curve?

Above all you sound incredibly bitter about someone celebrating the fact that they scored quite well on a practice test. Congrats, OP.
Last edited by chad2 on Wed May 30, 2018 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

sparkytrainer

Silver
Posts: 765
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 12:32 am

Re: Scored 176

Postby sparkytrainer » Wed May 30, 2018 2:48 pm

chad2 wrote:
sparkytrainer wrote:If I had a dollar for each person who scores a 175+ on a practice exam and then comes back asking for chances with a 164, I would be a rich person.
Good for a practice test, but you need to score that on a real thing. You do not have a 176, you have a practice 176. I say that as someone who was pting 178-180 and didn't score that on my first or second try.


Are you sure you aren't just upset that you didn't score as high on the test as you had on your practice tests?

If OP can consistently score in that range within the time limit then it's a probably a reasonably good predictor of how they'll do on the test. And I do not accept the premise that the minimal amount of noise/stress involved in taking the real thing is generally sufficient to bump you down more than a point or two -- certainly not from a 175+ to a 164.


I actually have an official 175+ score. The old mod Nomy had proof about it because I was called out once.

My comment was based on actual years of tutoring students privately on the LSAT. The general rule of thumb is a 5 point decrease on test day, but 90% of my students or people that post here tend to be within the 5-10 points lower than their best practice test. Not everyone, but a really significant proportion of people. Further, like I said earlier, the lsats in the 60s are not that reflective of the current lsats being administered. The RC is much harder than it was in the 60s, and there is a much higher chance of getting a very weird game now than their were in the 60s lsats. The LSAC has created a trend of lsats with very weird games over the past 3-4 years since around test administration 74ish that have been using a lot of the old game setups from the original lsats of 1-20. That trend has continued.

chad2

New
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 1:36 pm

Re: Scored 176

Postby chad2 » Wed May 30, 2018 3:02 pm

sparkytrainer wrote:
chad2 wrote:
sparkytrainer wrote:If I had a dollar for each person who scores a 175+ on a practice exam and then comes back asking for chances with a 164, I would be a rich person.
Good for a practice test, but you need to score that on a real thing. You do not have a 176, you have a practice 176. I say that as someone who was pting 178-180 and didn't score that on my first or second try.


Are you sure you aren't just upset that you didn't score as high on the test as you had on your practice tests?

If OP can consistently score in that range within the time limit then it's a probably a reasonably good predictor of how they'll do on the test. And I do not accept the premise that the minimal amount of noise/stress involved in taking the real thing is generally sufficient to bump you down more than a point or two -- certainly not from a 175+ to a 164.


I actually have an official 175+ score. The old mod Nomy had proof about it because I was called out once.

My comment was based on actual years of tutoring students privately on the LSAT. The general rule of thumb is a 5 point decrease on test day, but 90% of my students or people that post here tend to be within the 5-10 points lower than their best practice test. Not everyone, but a really significant proportion of people. Further, like I said earlier, the lsats in the 60s are not that reflective of the current lsats being administered. The RC is much harder than it was in the 60s, and there is a much higher chance of getting a very weird game now than their were in the 60s lsats. The LSAC has created a trend of lsats with very weird games over the past 3-4 years since around test administration 74ish that have been using a lot of the old game setups from the original lsats of 1-20. That trend has continued.


I've edited my original comment to address some of the points you made, but I will readdress those points here.

1. If you can only say that people scoring lower on real tests is a general "rule of thumb" without providing any evidence of what might cause this to occur, then OP (or anyone) has no reasonable basis for anticipating this. I don't accept that this just magically happens.

2. What is your evidence that RC is harder?

3. What weird setups are a part of the current trend? The virus game caught people off guard, but since that game virtually everything else has been orthodox (besides that weird property game on PT 80, which is unorthodox but not unquestionably more difficult than other games).

4. Even allowing that games are harder, what evidence is there that this is not accounted for in recent curves? After all, if you say that it's because people you've tutored are doing worse on them, well, wouldn't that affect the curve? Is it your claim that while the logic games have gotten harder in absolute terms, people have also gotten better at doing them such that the curve doesn't entirely reflect this added difficulty? If that's your claim, what is your evidence that people have gotten better at games?

sparkytrainer

Silver
Posts: 765
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 12:32 am

Re: Scored 176

Postby sparkytrainer » Wed May 30, 2018 3:12 pm

chad2 wrote:
sparkytrainer wrote:
chad2 wrote:
sparkytrainer wrote:If I had a dollar for each person who scores a 175+ on a practice exam and then comes back asking for chances with a 164, I would be a rich person.
Good for a practice test, but you need to score that on a real thing. You do not have a 176, you have a practice 176. I say that as someone who was pting 178-180 and didn't score that on my first or second try.


Are you sure you aren't just upset that you didn't score as high on the test as you had on your practice tests?

If OP can consistently score in that range within the time limit then it's a probably a reasonably good predictor of how they'll do on the test. And I do not accept the premise that the minimal amount of noise/stress involved in taking the real thing is generally sufficient to bump you down more than a point or two -- certainly not from a 175+ to a 164.


I actually have an official 175+ score. The old mod Nomy had proof about it because I was called out once.

My comment was based on actual years of tutoring students privately on the LSAT. The general rule of thumb is a 5 point decrease on test day, but 90% of my students or people that post here tend to be within the 5-10 points lower than their best practice test. Not everyone, but a really significant proportion of people. Further, like I said earlier, the lsats in the 60s are not that reflective of the current lsats being administered. The RC is much harder than it was in the 60s, and there is a much higher chance of getting a very weird game now than their were in the 60s lsats. The LSAC has created a trend of lsats with very weird games over the past 3-4 years since around test administration 74ish that have been using a lot of the old game setups from the original lsats of 1-20. That trend has continued.


I've edited my original comment to address some of the points you made, but I will readdress those points here.

1. If you can only say that people scoring lower on real tests is a general "rule of thumb" without providing any evidence of what might cause this to occur, then OP (or anyone) has no reasonable basis for anticipating this. I don't accept that this just magically happens.

2. What is your evidence that RC is harder?

3. What weird setups are a part of the current trend? The virus game caught people off guard, but since that game virtually everything else has been orthodox (besides that weird property game on PT 80, which is unorthodox but not unquestionably more difficult than other games).

4. Even allowing that games are harder, what evidence is there that this is not accounted for in recent curves? After all, if you say that it's because people you've tutored are doing worse on them, well, wouldn't that affect the curve?


I honestly don't have the energy to answer this all right now, but if you dont believe me, then fine. But go ask any LSAT professional what I just said and see what they say. They will confirm it. If you want to be a skeptic, go ahead.

chad2

New
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 1:36 pm

Re: Scored 176

Postby chad2 » Wed May 30, 2018 3:18 pm

sparkytrainer wrote:
chad2 wrote:
sparkytrainer wrote:
chad2 wrote:
sparkytrainer wrote:If I had a dollar for each person who scores a 175+ on a practice exam and then comes back asking for chances with a 164, I would be a rich person.
Good for a practice test, but you need to score that on a real thing. You do not have a 176, you have a practice 176. I say that as someone who was pting 178-180 and didn't score that on my first or second try.


Are you sure you aren't just upset that you didn't score as high on the test as you had on your practice tests?

If OP can consistently score in that range within the time limit then it's a probably a reasonably good predictor of how they'll do on the test. And I do not accept the premise that the minimal amount of noise/stress involved in taking the real thing is generally sufficient to bump you down more than a point or two -- certainly not from a 175+ to a 164.


I actually have an official 175+ score. The old mod Nomy had proof about it because I was called out once.

My comment was based on actual years of tutoring students privately on the LSAT. The general rule of thumb is a 5 point decrease on test day, but 90% of my students or people that post here tend to be within the 5-10 points lower than their best practice test. Not everyone, but a really significant proportion of people. Further, like I said earlier, the lsats in the 60s are not that reflective of the current lsats being administered. The RC is much harder than it was in the 60s, and there is a much higher chance of getting a very weird game now than their were in the 60s lsats. The LSAC has created a trend of lsats with very weird games over the past 3-4 years since around test administration 74ish that have been using a lot of the old game setups from the original lsats of 1-20. That trend has continued.


I've edited my original comment to address some of the points you made, but I will readdress those points here.

1. If you can only say that people scoring lower on real tests is a general "rule of thumb" without providing any evidence of what might cause this to occur, then OP (or anyone) has no reasonable basis for anticipating this. I don't accept that this just magically happens.

2. What is your evidence that RC is harder?

3. What weird setups are a part of the current trend? The virus game caught people off guard, but since that game virtually everything else has been orthodox (besides that weird property game on PT 80, which is unorthodox but not unquestionably more difficult than other games).

4. Even allowing that games are harder, what evidence is there that this is not accounted for in recent curves? After all, if you say that it's because people you've tutored are doing worse on them, well, wouldn't that affect the curve?


I honestly don't have the energy to answer this all right now, but if you dont believe me, then fine. But go ask any LSAT professional what I just said and see what they say. They will confirm it. If you want to be a skeptic, go ahead.


Well, I wasn't committed to being a skeptic until I read this post. If you can't address my points without appealing to the spurious authority of "LSAT professionals" (a mostly made-up title that, as far as I can tell, merely qualifies* you as 1. a high-scorer on the LSAT and 2. Someone in constant close proximity with people talking about the test and with all the preptests. I satisfy both these requirements, so as best I can tell that puts us on equal footing.), then I have no reason to accept anything you've said.

*To be clear, I'm not saying the only qualities you need to be an LSAT tutor are a high-score on the test and close proximity to test-takers -- you undoubtedly need to be patient, good at explaining things, etc. These are just the only two qualities relevant to confer any sort of authority on what a preptest score means, which preptests are harder, etc.

nixy

Bronze
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am

Re: Scored 176

Postby nixy » Wed May 30, 2018 3:40 pm

...but what does this have to do with the OP which was basically “look guys I did great on a practice test I’m ready for Yale”? 1) that’s a pretty pointless post and 2) one score on one (older) practice test really doesn’t prove how you’re going to do on the actual test. There wasn’t any evidence of consistently getting these scores.

chad2

New
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 1:36 pm

Re: Scored 176

Postby chad2 » Wed May 30, 2018 4:08 pm

nixy wrote:...but what does this have to do with the OP which was basically “look guys I did great on a practice test I’m ready for Yale”? 1) that’s a pretty pointless post and 2) one score on one (older) practice test really doesn’t prove how you’re going to do on the actual test. There wasn’t any evidence of consistently getting these scores.


1) It's not a pointless post, there was an explicit question that he/she posed in the OP which you and the other bitter poster were free to take a stab at and chose to ignore. "I'm ready for Yale" is very different from asking for advice for Yale. Of course, this is all barring the fact that, even if the post was pointless, people make posts with no other function than to celebrate milestones in prep scores all the time here and elsewhere without people batting an eye. Is pointlessness really your gripe with the OP? If so, that's a weird metric for going after a post, since there are hundreds upon hundreds of similar posts, yet you've singled out this one. I mean seriously, earlier today I saw a thread asking people to compare their first diagnostic score with their final LSAT score, which has no point other than to demonstrate that people can improve their test scores by quite a bit over time, a mantra virtually everyone on this forum is already familiar with. Why isn't that offensive to you?

2) Obviously it doesn't. Who is making this claim? I'm not, the OP isn't.

nixy

Bronze
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am

Re: Scored 176

Postby nixy » Wed May 30, 2018 4:19 pm

1) asking for comparisons of diagnostic scores with final scores has much more of a purpose than “yay look at my score” does. It gives people early in their prep process confidence that they too can improve and identifies people who might be able to answer questions how. And at least it’s a question rather than an announcement. Literally the only question in the OP is obviously not serious.

2) then why are you arguing over whether people are likely to get the same score on the real thing as on their practice exams?

chad2

New
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 1:36 pm

Re: Scored 176

Postby chad2 » Wed May 30, 2018 4:32 pm

nixy wrote:1) asking for comparisons of diagnostic scores with final scores has much more of a purpose than “yay look at my score” does. It gives people early in their prep process confidence that they too can improve and identifies people who might be able to answer questions how. And at least it’s a question rather than an announcement. Literally the only question in the OP is obviously not serious.

2) then why are you arguing over whether people are likely to get the same score on the real thing as on their practice exams?


1) Ok? I can just as easily construct purposes for this post. People might look at the score breakdown and decide that reading comprehension is harder than the other sections, and the satisfying feeling OP relates to finishing a personal statement might give new test-preppers something to strive for and motivate them to study harder. Yeah it's speculative, but no moreso than your argument. And think about the lively debate it spawned! At any rate, you're ignoring the bulk of my point, which is that there are innumerable preptest score posts all over the place which are virtually identical to this. Also, you seem to be assuming that a post can't have a point if it's celebratory, which is also a plausible explanation of the post. Isn't the point of a celebratory post just that -- to celebrate? Is your issue that you think the post is pointless, or you just don't approve of the point?

You say it's obviously not serious, I don't. What part of "anyone have tips for Yale?" connotes that? That is about the most upfront, direct way I can think to pose the question.

2) Because acknowledging that preptest scores do not "prove" your actual score is entirely distinct from maintaining that they tend to be good general indicators of test performance. That's literally the claim I begin my first post with, and the exact claim that my poster comrade challenged me on. Moreover, the OP themself only says they think they have a "good grasp" of the exam and makes no claims about what sort of predictive value the preptest has! Literally all of that stuff began with the poster below.

nixy

Bronze
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am

Re: Scored 176

Postby nixy » Wed May 30, 2018 7:49 pm

Which is why I said it wasn't responsive to the OP.

And if you really think "Any tips for Yale" was serious....okay.

chad2

New
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 1:36 pm

Re: Scored 176

Postby chad2 » Wed May 30, 2018 9:17 pm

nixy wrote:Which is why I said it wasn't responsive to the OP.

And if you really think "Any tips for Yale" was serious....okay.


If by "it" you mean the butthurt person who first responded, then I completely agree, it was not responsive at all.

Again, you're missing me with the "any tips for Yale" point. What am I missing about that statement that makes it obviously facetious?

nixy

Bronze
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am

Re: Scored 176

Postby nixy » Wed May 30, 2018 9:36 pm

Mostly the fact that the title is "scored 176" not something like "looking for help with Yale app" and this is in the LSAT prep forum, not the admissions forum or the what are my chances forum.

And I actually think it's perfectly responsive to tell someone that one practice test doesn't indicate the score they're going to get, and no less responsive than arguing with that person about a perfectly reasonable statement.

chad2

New
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 1:36 pm

Re: Scored 176

Postby chad2 » Wed May 30, 2018 11:45 pm

nixy wrote:Mostly the fact that the title is "scored 176" not something like "looking for help with Yale app" and this is in the LSAT prep forum, not the admissions forum or the what are my chances forum.

And I actually think it's perfectly responsive to tell someone that one practice test doesn't indicate the score they're going to get, and no less responsive than arguing with that person about a perfectly reasonable statement.


Well then I don't understand what you're saying wasn't responsive to the OP. Me? If so, I'll happily concede that I wasn't responsive to the OP -- mainly because that's not who I was responding to.

Really, that's what makes it not serious? That seems like a poor criterion. I saw a chance thread today that was posted in some non-chance forum; if you'd like I'd be happy to find it. Was that person not serious? Is any question or comment not directly related to the thread title or forum not serious?

nixy

Bronze
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am

Re: Scored 176

Postby nixy » Thu May 31, 2018 12:33 am

have you ever actually tried reading for context?

kellyjohnson

New
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri May 11, 2018 4:52 pm

Re: Scored 176

Postby kellyjohnson » Thu May 31, 2018 11:37 am

Sparky, you cite being an LSAT tutor as providing you with some level of authority. But you have to realize, people who sign up with LSAT tutors are self-selected and tend to be people who are struggling with the test (due to, for example, anxiety, lack of focus, or other issues). That is why they are paying a tutor in the first place.

Even assuming that you have tutored enough students to make a generalization that, among students you have tutored, the test-day score drops significantly, only a fool would think that generalization would extend to those who consistently score 175-180. It is extremely unlikely you have tutored enough students consistently PTing in the 175-180 range to make any such generalization. These students usually dont sign up for tutoring (why would they?).

As a result, you come across as someone who did worse on your first few takes than you were PT'ing, and are trying to comfort yourself by making it into a generalized "it happens to everyone" type thing.

sparkytrainer

Silver
Posts: 765
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 12:32 am

Re: Scored 176

Postby sparkytrainer » Thu May 31, 2018 1:11 pm

kellyjohnson wrote:Sparky, you cite being an LSAT tutor as providing you with some level of authority. But you have to realize, people who sign up with LSAT tutors are self-selected and tend to be people who are struggling with the test (due to, for example, anxiety, lack of focus, or other issues). That is why they are paying a tutor in the first place.

Even assuming that you have tutored enough students to make a generalization that, among students you have tutored, the test-day score drops significantly, only a fool would think that generalization would extend to those who consistently score 175-180. It is extremely unlikely you have tutored enough students consistently PTing in the 175-180 range to make any such generalization. These students usually dont sign up for tutoring (why would they?).

As a result, you come across as someone who did worse on your first few takes than you were PT'ing, and are trying to comfort yourself by making it into a generalized "it happens to everyone" type thing.


First, it took me three tries to get a 175+ official. I have since tutored a range of students, including around 10 175+ scorers. A significant chunk of my students are students who were stuck in the mid to high 160s and were looking for help breaking that threshold into the 170s. In fact, I would say more than half of my students over the last 4-5 year period were students who fit into that category. Maybe my sample size isn't large enough and thats always a possibility with any data set, let alone anecdotal evidence. However, out of my students who fall within that group of students who already had a 160s score and were looking to break into the 170s, almost all of them were students that practice tested in the 170s, took an official, scored a 160s score, and then looked for help breaking that barrier on an official test. A lot of the students only need help with a section or two as they were high scorers to begin with, but generally need much more practice with testing conditions and imposed pressures that they do not feel until they are in the testing room taking an official lsat.

It turns out in my albeit personal experience that almost anyone can get a 170+ on a practice test or two. I have had legitimate students who practice test 175+ and score 160 or 161 on a real thing. I've also had students who practice test around 168, yet get a 173 on the real thing. These latter students are much rarer in my experience, while the former is also fairly rare. In my experience, having tutored probably 50 or so students, is that almost everyone, including the highest scorers see a 5-10 decrease on test day. Not everyone, but most. I have had around 10 students get a 175+ official with another 20 or so in the 170-175 range. Out of those 30 or so students, almost every single one of them was practice testing in the high 170s (177-180). Yet only 1/3rd actually got a 175+. All were clearly capable of scoring a 177-180 as they had in practice tests. It may be testing anxiety, bubbling errors, or a game that was weird that caused their scores to slightly drop. Yet more than half had around a 5 point test drop for these HIGH scorers. Again, it doesn't happen to everyone, but it does happen in the majority of my high scoring students.

Further, something I note of all of my 175+ scorers is that they did not just have one or two practice tests in the high 170s. A few 170s practice tests mean you are on the right path, but it does not even closely mean you are a 170s official scorer. These students had usually 10 or more practice tests in that range. The key to the LSAT is consistency over time and testing conditions. If you can mimic testing conditions as best as possible and can score 175+ on practice tests for 10 in a row, chances are you will get a 170s score. But the big difference between my 175+ group and 170-175 group is that the former tends to have much more consistent, long term practice test success. The latter group tends to practice test well, but not on as a consistent basis. For example, a 170-175 student of mine was consistently practice testing in the 170s. Yet his/her results would go from 178 to 172 to 177 to 173 and back and forth like this. Turns out the practice tests that the student had more realistic testing conditions (say taking it in a coffee shop for ambient noise practice) would score lower than when he/she practiced at home in a bedroom.

Ultimately, this is all just my anecdotal evidence so if you want to be skeptical, you can. But these are my observations as a tutor.

chad2

New
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 1:36 pm

Re: Scored 176

Postby chad2 » Thu May 31, 2018 1:54 pm

nixy wrote:have you ever actually tried reading for context?


What, like understanding the context in which something is written? Yes? How is that material at all here? Here the only context is like three sentences explaining the score he/she got and then following it up with "tips for Yale." Is that what makes it not serious? That's also a pretty weak criterion, and you haven't even addressed the weaknesses I pointed out in your first one yet.

Or maybe you're referring to something else in this thread with "reading for context." I don't know, and it's not because I'm a bad reader, it's because you're being vague and unclear.

nixy

Bronze
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am

Re: Scored 176

Postby nixy » Thu May 31, 2018 10:09 pm

chad2 wrote:
nixy wrote:have you ever actually tried reading for context?


What, like understanding the context in which something is written? Yes? How is that material at all here? Here the only context is like three sentences explaining the score he/she got and then following it up with "tips for Yale." Is that what makes it not serious? That's also a pretty weak criterion, and you haven't even addressed the weaknesses I pointed out in your first one yet.

Or maybe you're referring to something else in this thread with "reading for context." I don't know, and it's not because I'm a bad reader, it's because you're being vague and unclear.

Whatever you say, honey. Yes, personally when I see someone congratulate themselves on a score in an LSAT thread and finish it up with “any tips for Yale?” that context indicates that “any tips for Yale” isn’t a serious request for advice, but a commentary on how they feel about their score. You clearly disagree. That’s nice.

Tonyk

New
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2017 11:49 pm

Re: Scored 176

Postby Tonyk » Fri Jun 01, 2018 1:58 am

Cant we all just get along :cry:

chad2

New
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 1:36 pm

Re: Scored 176

Postby chad2 » Fri Jun 01, 2018 12:44 pm

nixy wrote:
chad2 wrote:
nixy wrote:have you ever actually tried reading for context?


What, like understanding the context in which something is written? Yes? How is that material at all here? Here the only context is like three sentences explaining the score he/she got and then following it up with "tips for Yale." Is that what makes it not serious? That's also a pretty weak criterion, and you haven't even addressed the weaknesses I pointed out in your first one yet.

Or maybe you're referring to something else in this thread with "reading for context." I don't know, and it's not because I'm a bad reader, it's because you're being vague and unclear.

Whatever you say, honey. Yes, personally when I see someone congratulate themselves on a score in an LSAT thread and finish it up with “any tips for Yale?” that context indicates that “any tips for Yale” isn’t a serious request for advice, but a commentary on how they feel about their score. You clearly disagree. That’s nice.


I think you're reading way too much into the initial comment without any basis for doing so, and you've just gotten snarky and angsty when I've called you on it without actually supporting anything you say (quoted post included). So yes, I do disagree. But please don't act like I'm somehow out of line here -- you're the one who initially chose to respond to what I had previously written in response to that other poster, not the other way around. Don't act so taken aback by me simply responding back.
Last edited by chad2 on Fri Jun 01, 2018 12:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.

chad2

New
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 1:36 pm

Re: Scored 176

Postby chad2 » Fri Jun 01, 2018 12:49 pm

Tonyk wrote:Cant we all just get along :cry:


Oh, I'm sure I'd get along just fine with everyone in this thread. I just think some of them have made some strange arguments ;)



Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 8 guests