The Official October Waiter's Oasis Forum

PatriotP74 · Post by **PatriotP74** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:36 pm

Post removed...

gamerish · Post by **gamerish** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:36 pm

Post removed...

pppp · Post by **pppp** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:37 pm

Was the LR about the author and pleasure/truth, and the cop dramas a real section?

nlee10 · Post by **nlee10** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:37 pm

Please, curve poll!
I'm thinking -10 or -11

mcleemz · Post by **mcleemz** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:38 pm

ChillTomG wrote:
I am also completely convinced that LR#2, question #24 did not have a valid answer. It was necessary assumption question. I don't know how in detail I can go about the question and answer choices, but I think I am going to throw the challenge flag at LSAC.

The question was about introductory science courses being "proving" courses

YES. I remember this question now too and thinking there was no truly right answer. Someone else on here was saying they thought a LR question would get thrown out. Does anyone else remember this question as particularly BS?

EnderWiggin · Post by **EnderWiggin** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:38 pm

mod edit: too much info

cub1014 · Post by **cub1014** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:38 pm

I can't wait until we get to the poll of which TLS-er we should sacrifice to the LSAC gods to get our scores faster. I'm still voting Ben Wyatt.

TheWalkingDebt · Post by **TheWalkingDebt** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:38 pm

I think I got no less than 10 wrong (-5 lg, -2 rc, -3-4 lr) unless I got lucky on my lg guesses and my uncertainty on the first lr was unwarranted. Either way I probably will not hit 170+. It sucks to know that but I've got one more try as a worst case scenario.

sanibella · Post by **sanibella** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:39 pm

sorry4lurking wrote:
sanibella wrote:
RZ5646 wrote:
ChillTomG wrote:
RZ5646 wrote:
ChillTomG wrote:I found LG to be much harder than that of a typical LSAT. Maybe I was missing something here, but I usually finish the LG section with 5-10 minutes to spare, both in PTs and for real in June. I finished this LG section with only two minutes to spare, then went back and realized that I missed a rules question. I would be very surprised if I missed any questions, but it felt much harder than usual.

The biggest surprise was RC. I thought it was surprisingly easy. Usually, I am seriously cramped for time and rushing during my PTs, barely finishing before the buzzer is called. The same thing happened during the June test. Here, I blew through the Schoenberg passage in 6 minutes, and finished with a few minutes to spare, without rushing. I usually miss 3 or 4 questions on RC (three on the June test). I would be very surprised if I missed more than two questions on this test. I am guessing one miss, and would not be surprised if I scored perfectly.

The LR sections were both about average I thought, neither seemed easier than the other. I didn't have as much time as I would have like to check answers on either section. I am expecting a total of -2/-3 from both sections combined.

Overall, I am predicting -3 or -4 for the test. With the worst curve in history, and a -4, that puts me at a 175, but I think that this test was overall average-hard, putting me at a 177-179. I hope my predictions are right!

I am also completely convinced that LR#2, question #24 did not have a valid answer. It was necessary assumption question. I don't know how in detail I can go about the question and answer choices, but I think I am going to throw the challenge flag at LSAC.
What was the topic of that question? Try to get us to remember it without breaking the rules
The question was about introductory science courses being "proving" courses
Hmmm I think that question was okay. Idk how to explain it in a TLS-friendly way though and I don't want to get banned.
+1

Agreed that I had to do a double take, but this question was answerable. There was a nuance in the passage that it required you to root out

The only one that did not compute for me was about saleability of cars but I know it was answerable. At that point I was holding a tissue up to catch everything from my ear and wondering at what point did I become a masochist...ugh today ugh

br714 · Post by **br714** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:39 pm

mod edit: too much info

ugg · Post by **ugg** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:39 pm

Post removed.

ugg · Post by **ugg** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:40 pm

Post removed.

ChillTomG · Post by **ChillTomG** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:40 pm

br714 wrote:
mcleemz wrote:
ChillTomG wrote:
I am also completely convinced that LR#2, question #24 did not have a valid answer. It was necessary assumption question. I don't know how in detail I can go about the question and answer choices, but I think I am going to throw the challenge flag at LSAC.

The question was about introductory science courses being "proving" courses
YES. I remember this question now too and thinking there was no truly right answer. Someone else on here was saying they thought a LR question would get thrown out. Does anyone else remember this question as particularly BS?
I remember thinking this question was invalid. Are we sure it was a necessary assumption question?

Yes. If it was sufficient assumption, then the answer was clear. But it wasn't. There was no subtlety that I could find.

TheWalkingDebt · Post by **TheWalkingDebt** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:41 pm

That question was answerable. I thought the pleasure question was tougher.

The Abyss · Post by **The Abyss** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:42 pm

gamerish wrote:
The Abyss wrote:
gamerish wrote:
TheWalkingDebt wrote:I think probably -11.
I hope to god. I doubt I did so well that I could still hit 170 on a -8 just because that's completely unprecedented in my PT'ing but I've never felt so good about a test before.

I'm also pretty drunk right now so sorry if I offended anyone.
Drunk and really confident here too.
No misc games (on the real section at least)!

I was so happy!

Third game was pretty tough but at least I knew how to approach it.

Game 4 on the experimental LG was a nightmare.

Here's to us both going 170+! Slainte!

ugg · Post by **ugg** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:42 pm

Post removed.

Petrichor · Post by **Petrichor** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:42 pm

nlee10 wrote:Please, curve poll!
I'm thinking -10 or -11

i am thinking -11 but hoping for -14

sanibella · Post by **sanibella** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:43 pm

ChillTomG wrote:
br714 wrote:
mcleemz wrote:
ChillTomG wrote:
I am also completely convinced that LR#2, question #24 did not have a valid answer. It was necessary assumption question. I don't know how in detail I can go about the question and answer choices, but I think I am going to throw the challenge flag at LSAC.

The question was about introductory science courses being "proving" courses
YES. I remember this question now too and thinking there was no truly right answer. Someone else on here was saying they thought a LR question would get thrown out. Does anyone else remember this question as particularly BS?
I remember thinking this question was invalid. Are we sure it was a necessary assumption question?
Yes. If it was sufficient assumption, then the answer was clear. But it wasn't. There was no subtlety that I could find.

I really feel like there was a clear answer here, no offense to anyone.

gamerish · Post by **gamerish** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:43 pm

Post removed...

ChillTomG · Post by **ChillTomG** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:44 pm

gamerish wrote:
EnderWiggin wrote:To echo someone else's post earlier, also thought it was weird there were no main conclusion questions in the two real LR. Also don't recall seeing any method of argument questions, though there easily could have been one and I just don't remember it.
Guess they decided we needed even more assumption questions... There really were quite a lot on this test. It felt like every other questions was necessary assumption.

br714 wrote:
mcleemz wrote:
ChillTomG wrote:
I am also completely convinced that LR#2, question #24 did not have a valid answer. It was necessary assumption question. I don't know how in detail I can go about the question and answer choices, but I think I am going to throw the challenge flag at LSAC.

The question was about introductory science courses being "proving" courses
YES. I remember this question now too and thinking there was no truly right answer. Someone else on here was saying they thought a LR question would get thrown out. Does anyone else remember this question as particularly BS?
I remember thinking this question was invalid. Are we sure it was a necessary assumption question?
I really only vaguely remember any of the questions but I THINK this was a question that was one of those newer "we actually want a sufficient AND necessary" assumption questions David Hall has talked about.

Then why use the word "required"?

chalky · Post by **chalky** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:45 pm

Post removed...

gamerish · Post by **gamerish** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:46 pm

Post removed...

ugg · Post by **ugg** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:46 pm

Post removed.

ChillTomG · Post by **ChillTomG** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:47 pm

Well the question was easy then, and I did get it correct, but that is patently absurd.

Mint-Berry_Crunch · Post by **Mint-Berry_Crunch** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:48 pm

Post removed...