How to break this hump? Forum

[03152016]

I think you can consistently get 175+ if you approach the test the right way, but 175-180 is luck based.

We could ask everybody on TLS who have scored anything between 175-180, and ask them if they can confidently bet their life that they can always always always score that or higher, never dipping below. Because if they do, it's luck based.

this would be funny if it wasn't so sad

be honest

1) do you seriously think you made an argument based in logic?

2) do you not understand what moving the goalposts means? if not, please see your above argument

[03152016]

stop being elusive
can you support the claim or not
if you can, post actual support in your next post
otherwise you'll prove you have no leg to stand on

[03152016]

you're sounding pretty desperate dude

i'm not one of your idiot friends
you're not going to get me to lose the thread

you made a claim that 175-180 was luck
now back it up

I've already made a bunch of logical arguments to support that claim, but you refuse them on the grounds that "they're a bunch of inane shit". What would be sufficient evidence?

Numbers?

We could ask everybody on TLS who have scored anything between 175-180, and ask them if they can confidently bet their life that they can always always always score that or higher, never dipping below. Because if they do, it's at least partially dependent on luck.

However, as of now, I'm not capable of collecting this data. But I don't see why you're unwilling to accept support for a claim that isn't hard data. In that same vein, your claim that I'm wrong is unsupported because I don't see you posting any stats. Lack of evidence for a claim doesn't inherently make that claim false. This is a common LSAT question, you should know better.

stop editing your posts after they've been responded to {edit: you genius!}
you keep changing your post to make your argument different

you're the one making a claim
the burden isn't on me to disprove

god, not only do you not know how to argue, but you have to dishonestly edit your posts afterwards too
{edit #2: the irony}

[03152016]

I'm flattered you decided to stalk my post history

it's in your profile you idiot

[PeanutsNJam]

stop being elusive
can you support the claim or not
if you can, post actual support in your next post
otherwise you'll prove you have no leg to stand on

"I think" isn't a claim, it's a statement of opinion. I am claiming that 175-180 is dependent on luck. Also, just because 175-180 is dependent on luck, that doesn't mean 170-180 isn't, or 165-170 isn't, etc.

Here's my support, I'll explain like you're 5:

For every test taker ever, their scores fluctuate within a range. Sometimes, this range is 175-180.

There's a statement of fact that I'm using as support for my conclusion: than 175-180 is at least partially dependent on luck.

And no, I didn't dishonestly edit my post, I added thoughts that I had earlier excluded.

Edit -

The burden is on you to disprove IF you also make a claim: that I'm wrong. If all you do is question the support to my claim without explicitly making a claim of your own, then that's valid, and you don't have to disprove anything. However, you cannot assume a claim is wrong just because of a lack of support, as I've stated.

[03152016]

how have you still not gotten the point?

[03152016]

like, this is actually unbelievable

your claim now reduces to, it's all luck no matter what score range you're in

you couldn't be a more textbook example of moving the goalposts

i actually now feel bad for criticizing you dude

you're clearly not all there

[PeanutsNJam]

My point is that consistency is affected by a number of factors unrelated to personal intellect or competence. In order to score 180 every time, you not only need mastery of the LSAT, but an ability to answer each question to the best of your abilities every single time.

Same goes for 180, or 179, or 178, or whatever.

Place the cutoff wherever you wish, my argument stands.

This is my 3rd post in this thread. I've already conceded that perhaps 175 is an arbitrary cutoff (place the cutoff wherever you wish), I haven't been moving any goalposts.

All I've been doing is stating that regardless of where the "true" cutoff is, 175-180 involves luck.

[03152016]

no, you're saying that every score involves luck

you're not making any point at all you edit: *self censoring*

[PeanutsNJam]

no, you're saying that every score involves luck

you're not making any point at all you edit: *self censoring*

I'm not moving the goalpost here, you are. You've been restating my arguments incorrectly to suit yourself.

[03152016]

let me break this down since i'm clearly going too fast for you

did you say this or not:
For every test taker ever, their scores fluctuate within a range.

just answer yes or no you incredibly smart poster you

[PeanutsNJam]

let me break this down since i'm clearly going too fast for you

did you say this or not:
For every test taker ever, their scores fluctuate within a range.

just answer yes or no you incredibly smart poster you

Yes. But I did NOT state that as my conclusion or my claim, I stated it as support. As evidence. A premise.

Is a conclusion and a premise the same thing.

just answer yes or no you incredibly smart poster you

[03152016]

you were unable to follow my simple instructions, which is as a complete shock to me
but out of your rambling i pulled out the relevant information

so you admit that you stated:
For every test taker ever, their scores fluctuate within a range.

now lets try the next step

i know this is hard for you, but, did you post that sentence before these two sentences:

Sometimes, this range is 175-180.
There's a statement of fact that I'm using as support for my conclusion: than 175-180 is at least partially dependent on luck.

try to follow the directions this time {edit: you wise sage}

[03152016]

a simple yes or no

[PeanutsNJam]

you were unable to follow my simple instructions, which is as a complete shock to me
but out of your rambling i pulled out the relevant information

you stated:
just answer yes or no

I answered:
Yes.

I then proposed another question to you, asking you to answer yes or no.

Did you answer yes or no?

Edit -

Forget it, I read the last few posts and this has devolved into a debate with a child screaming "I'm rubber and you're glue!". I'm going to go do something else. In a couple hours, people will peruse this thread and Brut, should you be in the right here, will get the validation you deserve. But currently this is pointless.

[03152016]

apparently you are confused

it's my fault, i overestimated you

let's try this a different way

For every test taker ever, their scores fluctuate within a range.
Sometimes, this range is 175-180.
There's a statement of fact that I'm using as support for my conclusion: than 175-180 is at least partially dependent on luck.

since you can't read very well, i will just go ahead and tell you that you posted all three of those sentences

you are arguing that the fact that there is fluctuation makes a score range partially dependent on luck

correct or incorrect you master of logic

[03152016]

no, i'm actually trying to drive towards a point which you're actively obstructing

but if you want to run away with your tail between your legs and pretend that's not what's happening, be my guest

[PeanutsNJam]

no, i'm actually trying to drive towards a point which you're actively obstructing

but if you want to run away with your tail between your legs and pretend that's not what's happening, be my guest

If walking away from a playground screaming match means running away with my tail between my legs, then yes. That's what I'm doing. Go find another hapless fool to exclaim "retard!" at and ask leading questions while ignoring any response they have that doesn't serve your purpose.

[03152016]

the discussion at hand was about how luck factored in once you're above 175 (or, generally, in a high score range)
saying that there will be score fluctuation and therefore one is dependent on luck is a trivial argument
it has nothing to do with those high scores in particular
it is completely irrelevant to the discussion, and in fact only emerged after i pressed you for proof of your original claim

in general, your posts on this forum have been generally inane and irrelevant
you shouldn't be surprised when you get called on for your idiotic posts

[Nulli Secundus]

Re: luck, you keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

[appind]

2. If you have time left, read each question as if you know you answered it wrong. Let me try to explain this one: I'm a very, very fast reader, and as a result finish LR and RC sections with somewhere between 8-12 minutes left over. The trouble is, that's enough time to superficially check the entire section, or to focus hard on the last 5/6 tricky ones. The dilemma is that if I missed a question the first time, a superficial run through probably won't catch anything. I try and mitigate this by circling/starring any Qs that struck me as tricky or problematic but again, if I realized it was a difficult one, I probably figured it out. In June, I missed a couple of RC questions and a couple of LR questions that were unbelievably moronic, that I've never missed before. Pressure is a tough thing. You have to get into the mindset of not reading over your answers to confirm your choice, but instead imagine you've been told that the answer you gave is wrong - then figure out why it's wrong, and which answer is right. This mental trick worked so well for me in PTs (I started doing it when I realized that the moment I graded myself and saw the answer was wrong I would understand why - and if I could understand why then, then why not before?) and I just failed to do it in the actual test. I was so happy to be done with a section and have a moment to recharge mentally that I skimped on the readthroughs and missed some absolute sitters.

What techniques you use to finish LR RC with 12 minutes remaining (within 23 mins)? I hope it's something learnable not something you just grew up with as your posted timing is under 6 min per passage for rc.