LR LG LR LR RC - Which is experimental? Forum

[rosenbiems]

Well, I certainly hope that is the case. I have LR 25 LR 26 LR 26 and am hoping the 2nd LR is the exp, which all evidence seems to indicate that it does. However the fact that one group of testers seems to have had the 4th section exp seems to cast some doubt on my assumption..

[senorhosh]

Well, I certainly hope that is the case. I have LR 25 LR 26 LR 26 and am hoping the 2nd LR is the exp, which all evidence seems to indicate that it does. However the fact that one group of testers seems to have had the 4th section exp seems to cast some doubt on my assumption..

There are two experimentals.

From what I gathered..
One group had it their 3rd section (2nd LR section), and the other group group had it either their 1st or 4th section, which we are trying to figure out.

I guess for those who are "sure" it's their 3rd section (2nd LR), you can still be correct despite the supposedly conflicting posts

[anewaphorist]

I had LR (25) LG (23) LR (26) LR (26) RC (27)

I thought the 1st and 3rd LRs were a breeze, but the 2nd LR was a bitch. I don't remember a half-page principle question, but I do remember "hot spots," "killer whales," and "computers without permission." Hmm...

[justonemoregame]

I had LR (25) LG (23) LR (26) LR (26) RC (27)

I thought the 1st and 3rd LRs were a breeze, but the 2nd LR was a bitch. I don't remember a half-page principle question, but I do remember "hot spots," "killer whales," and "computers without permission." Hmm...

My thoughts exactly. 3rd LR (4th section) I thought was too easy, which makes me think it's the Exp.

[EMZE]

A fools errand... I called LSAC to ask if experimental sections can be fourth. They wouldn't even tell me when I said I haven't slep since the test and won't for 3 weeks.

[neeko]

A fools errand... I called LSAC to ask if experimental sections can be fourth. They wouldn't even tell me when I said I haven't slep since the test and won't for 3 weeks.

Love it

[Gymnast0206]

A fools errand... I called LSAC to ask if experimental sections can be fourth. They wouldn't even tell me when I said I haven't slep since the test and won't for 3 weeks.

Haha I love this.

[senorhosh]

someone who DIDN'T Have LR exp...

did you have a really short flawed parallel reasoning question

(i'm assuming it's okay to do this as long as I don't reference the question topic or anything about it. Also it seems okay to mention "that really long principle question" so I'm guessing it's okay for "really short parallel question")

[motivation]

.

[tlahood]

Did anyone with a LR LG LR LR RC test have a LR question that they recognized almost verbatim from a previous LSAT preptest (61 or 62?), that appeared in the 2nd or 3rd LR? I thought for sure people would be talking about it on here, but I've only found one other person who also remembers it. I think it was a flaw question, and I'm going to search my old preptests until I figure this out! I literally thought I was going insane when I saw it.

[qbt1990]

Did anyone with a LR LG LR LR RC test have a LR question that they recognized almost verbatim from a previous LSAT preptest (61 or 62?), that appeared in the 2nd or 3rd LR? I thought for sure people would be talking about it on here, but I've only found one other person who also remembers it. I think it was a flaw question, and I'm going to search my old preptests until I figure this out! I literally thought I was going insane when I saw it.

What was the basic topic? I am definitely familiar with both of those tests

[tyro]

Did anyone with a LR LG LR LR RC test have a LR question that they recognized almost verbatim from a previous LSAT preptest (61 or 62?), that appeared in the 2nd or 3rd LR? I thought for sure people would be talking about it on here, but I've only found one other person who also remembers it. I think it was a flaw question, and I'm going to search my old preptests until I figure this out! I literally thought I was going insane when I saw it.

Another person mentioned seeing an LR question that they knew had been on a PT. They concluded that this meant it was the exp section.

[puff0ffluff]

hate to say it, but i'll put my bets on the 4th section being the exp for anyone with two 25LR. A few tests ago no one believed there were 102 questions total, but there were... now no one's willing to accept that some of us might have had an exp section 4th... watch the LSAC mess with us

[EMZE]

I don't think that's really surprising. For those who have done multiple PTs, I know I have done countless questions regarding criteria for judging art, studies on cholesterol levels, global warming, office environment, small town policy/law changes.. and I am willing to best most all of those were part of a similar question on our test.

[zdamico]

Any clue what your 25er was like, structurally?

Last question, I promise. Damn having LR as Experimental

zdamico, this would be what is called "soliciting answers." See you in a day. For everyone else, here is a refresher on the RULES.

Also, an FYI. Tomorrow will be 3 days since the test and we've been very, very clear on these rules. Therefore, tomorrow my ban time will go from 1 day to 3 days. Thank you.

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 2011 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 October 2011 LSAT questions and answers when you completed your signing statement when taking the test. The LSAC considers it a violation to discuss specific October 2011 LSAT questions and answers; the LSAC will act accordingly upon discovering discussion of specific October 2011 LSAT questions and answers. Be advised that the LSAC and its agents monitor this board.

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.

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.

May I ask why I was banned? I was asking a question about how many questions someone had on one page spread of the test. Lots of people are asking each other how many questions they had, and even naming some topics of their questions. I don't really get how what I did is worse at all.

Not complaining, I just don't want to get banned in the future, so any insight you could give me would be appreciated! Thanks!

[nygrrrl]

May I ask why I was banned? I was asking a question about how many questions someone had on one page spread of the test. Lots of people are asking each other how many questions they had, and even naming some topics of their questions. I don't really get how what I did is worse at all.

Not complaining, I just don't want to get banned in the future, so any insight you could give me would be appreciated! Thanks!

No worries - it was asking about the structure of the section with 25 Q's. We've been having a lot of people asking about/offering information about specific question types/diagrams/structures of sections and problems/etc. All of that is off-limits.
Steering clear of any but the vaguest of questions is a safe bet.

[zdamico]

May I ask why I was banned? I was asking a question about how many questions someone had on one page spread of the test. Lots of people are asking each other how many questions they had, and even naming some topics of their questions. I don't really get how what I did is worse at all.

Not complaining, I just don't want to get banned in the future, so any insight you could give me would be appreciated! Thanks!

No worries - it was asking about the structure of the section with 25 Q's. We've been having a lot of people asking about/offering information about specific question types/diagrams/structures of sections and problems/etc. All of that is off-limits.
Steering clear of any but the vaguest of questions is a safe bet.

Will do, thanks!