Official challenge to the 4th game in the scored LG section Forum

[FuManChusco]

you guys are ridiculous. that game was easy. one of the inferences basically solved the entire thing.

[whuts4lunch]

you guys are ridiculous. that game was easy. one of the inferences basically solved the entire thing.

thanks for the constructive post

[Rocketman11]

Sent this today. Also outraged.

8 June 2010

Dear LSAC Representative,

I am writing in regard to an ongoing debate about the 4th game in the June 2010 Logic Games (Analytical Reasoning) section.

It has come to my attention that a group of test takers feel there was an injustice in this game and that “_____” was a word open to interpretation. I am writing on behalf of all those test takers with an elementary-level grasp of the English language in hopes that you remain resolved in not making accommodations for a potentially vocal minority, thus altering the curve placement for the rest of us.

Access to law school seems to be no longer restricted by LSAT performance. Due to factors outside of LSAC's control, such as an ABA accreditation process only slightly more selective than an ACORN voter registration drive, individuals obviously not qualified to give legal counsel are somehow still finding their way to Juris Doctorates and even bar passage. No matter how many large blocks and trip wires we put in front of these legal Helen Kellers, they remain resolute that a future of affairs with breast-augmented paralegals and career highways ending in SCOTUS nominations are not only earned them, but necessarily expected.

It is a tricky thing, the English language. Words can have multiple denotations and various connotations. The inability of over caffeinated virgins to correctly ascertain skin-deep, basic instructions is troubling to those such as me who fear that the legal market will never fully recover. Sarah Palin and responsibility. Miss Teen South Carolina and intelligence. Thomas M Cooley Law students and jurisprudence. Like a brothel and crabs, it seems clear to most of us that some things should not be mixed together for the betterment of society. I hope that if we can demand nothing else from our aspiring legal scholars, we require that they can color within the lines, breath through their nose and comprehend words.

Thanks for all your hard work!

Sincerely,

Rocketman11

[citrustang]

You won't be dissuaded. You've already convinced yourself despite the fact that it is not true.

But you do not have a legitimate argument because it falls apart when applied to how terms are conventionally used by English speakers today.

I see exactly how you are using the dictionary to back you up and understand the examples you have given yourself conform with that. However, I could easily provide you with 3 or so sentences that show you that you are wrong.

You are attempting to have this discussion in a black/white manner. If you personally had no difficulty arriving at the correct interpretation, kudos. But if any testers, utilizing a reasonable definition of the word, experienced any uncertainty, even minute, then the LG must be reviewed. Those of you who are arguing there was no ambiguity have a tough job: you must prove the correct interpretation "must be true," whereas I only need to argue that the incorrect interpretation "could be true" based on the prompt.

We are discussing an LG set in the same manner we might discuss a particular LR or RC question. Doesn't that strike some of you as odd? LG and uncertainty don't mix.

[3|ink]

I omitted it because it contains the word we are not allowed to mention. Please edit your post.

You're allowed to post the definition, but not the word?

Just because the word appears on the LSAT doesn't mean the word is completely taboo. The context of the word in my post does not reveal anything specific about the game.

The example completely undermines your position on the 'open' definition. It stays until the admins tell me otherwise.

[slax]

"Ambiguity" in LG must necessarily refer to different potential interpretations, and those interpretations must be considered not according to their "legitimacy" but instead by "whether a reasonable level of uncertainty could lead to another, incorrect, yet supportable, interpretation." I can frame the issue in a different way: the issue is not whether the correct interpretation could result from the prompt but whether or not it must result from the prompt. No one is going to argue with you that there is only one correct interpretation and the other is incorrect. The problem is that a test-taker shouldn't need to rely upon unsuccessfully attempting questions in order to recognize his/her reasonable interpretation of a particular word was the wrong one of two possibilities.

LG is supposed to test many things, the above has not historically been one of them.

Taken from last night's thread. If you had no issue with the wording in the fourth LG, then congratulations. You are not being asked to send a letter of challenge. Those who are being asked know who they are.

Citrus, first, sorry you were so thrown off, I read the deleted thread as well. However, I respectfully disagree with your implying that those who understood the question have no place in the debate and shouldn't argue against sending a letter. I understood what the word meant. It was cut and dry to me. I don't want your mistake to delay the release of my scores or to remove one of my correct answers from scoring. Worst yet is the previous suggestion to remove the entire game from scoring. I think other test takers like myself have a great interest in lobbying to you and those in your situation not to send in letters by trying to prove to you that the mistake was yours and not LSATs.

Not trying to upset you or anything, just pointing out the other side of the coin.

[randomperson]

this was one of those games that seemed like a blur to me so i forgot a lot of the details...for clarification, the definition of the word in question for the purpose of solving the game was the one referring to the type of work, not the location, correct?

[FuManChusco]

you guys are ridiculous. that game was easy. one of the inferences basically solved the entire thing.

thanks for the constructive post

I mean, this really is ridiculous. trying to get lsac to discard an entire game could absolutely be classified as ridiculous. maybe I just didn't see the other interpretation of the rule that confused so many people. this game was very easy for me.

[NonTradHealthLaw]

OP - I commend you for sticking up for yourself and your principles and doing so in a mature and coherent way. I pray to my LSAT gods that the question(s) won't be dismissed, but I can certainly understand why you and others are angry, especially given its seemingly indiscriminate swathe upon takers. This isn't meant to be condescending or patronizing in the least - but you'll be an asset to the profession if this is how you handle yourself routinely.

I, fortunately, interpreted the word correctly, giving it zero pause until reading the vehemence last night. Since then I've been obsessing over the ambiguity since in my daily professional life, the word in question is almost uniformly used according to the second M-W definition. It'll be an interesting couple of weeks.

[akikaze]

Sent this today. Also outraged.

8 June 2010

Dear LSAC Representative,

I am writing in regard to an ongoing debate about the 4th game in the June 2010 Logic Games (Analytical Reasoning) section.

It has come to my attention that a group of test takers feel there was an injustice in this game and that “_____” was a word open to interpretation. I am writing on behalf of all those test takers with an elementary-level grasp of the English language in hopes that you remain resolved in not making accommodations for a potentially vocal minority, thus altering the curve placement for the rest of us.

Access to law school seems to be no longer restricted by LSAT performance. Due to factors outside of LSAC's control, such as an ABA accreditation process only slightly more selective than an ACORN voter registration drive, individuals obviously not qualified to give legal counsel are somehow still finding their way to Juris Doctorates and even bar passage. No matter how many large blocks and trip wires we put in front of these legal Helen Kellers, they remain resolute that a future of affairs with breast-augmented paralegals and career highways ending in SCOTUS nominations are not only earned them, but necessarily expected.

It is a tricky thing, the English language. Words can have multiple denotations and various connotations. The inability of over caffeinated virgins to correctly ascertain skin-deep, basic instructions is troubling to those such as me who fear that the legal market will never fully recover. Sarah Palin and responsibility. Miss Teen South Carolina and intelligence. Thomas M Cooley Law students and jurisprudence. Like a brothel and crabs, it seems clear to most of us that some things should not be mixed together for the betterment of society. I hope that if we can demand nothing else from our aspiring legal scholars, we require that they can color within the lines, breath through their nose and comprehend words.

Thanks for all your hard work!

Sincerely,

Rocketman11

I think it's super-evil to send an email like that, but I have to admit I LOLed multiple times while reading it =)

[JTX]

I <3 Rocket.

you kids today think you have it so hard. for my LSAT, i had to walk twelve miles through the snow, uphill both ways. And I remember when the LG were actually hard, not like they are today.

but all joking aside, everyone from this test should just write an LSAT addendum in your applications. Adcomms will totally understand.

[scruffs mcguff]

You are attempting to have this discussion in a black/white manner. If you personally had no difficulty arriving at the correct interpretation, kudos. But if any testers, utilizing a reasonable definition of the word, experienced any uncertainty, even minute, then the LG must be reviewed. Those of you who are arguing there was no ambiguity have a tough job: you must prove the correct interpretation "must be true," whereas I only need to argue that the incorrect interpretation "could be true" based on the prompt.

We are discussing an LG set in the same manner we might discuss a particular LR or RC question. Doesn't that strike some of you as odd? LG and uncertainty don't mix.

Couldn't you just say that at some point you got to a question where you could not come up with only one correct answer and at that point it satisfies your "must be true" criteria? At that point (no matter the first or last question of the game) the correct interpretation must be true.

[AVBucks4239]

Is the crux of the issue here that it was not clear what it meant when they said that X and Y work in the same (term in question)? Well, if I recall correctly they clearly defined what (term in question) was in the directions... And they also defined the other grouping set using a different word. Both were used throughout the game in a consistent fashion.

This here is the nail in the coffin.

There were rules concerning the one aspect of the group, then there were rules concerning the other. They were used in an entirely consistent fashion with the wording in the stimulus.

The fact that your "common knowledge" of the terms made the rules ambiguous is simply your fault. One of the first things you learn when you start studying for the LSAT is to forget the real world and treat the LSAC authors as correct--all the time. What Merriam-Webster says about "term x" and "term y" is of no use.

There was a clear distinction in the stimulus and rules as to what the "ambiguous" term referred to.

Now, Citrus, I respect your disagreement, but your constant crusade against what you perceived as an ambiguity is undermining those of us who interpreted the rule correctly.

[bk1]

You are attempting to have this discussion in a black/white manner. If you personally had no difficulty arriving at the correct interpretation, kudos. But if any testers, utilizing a reasonable definition of the word, experienced any uncertainty, even minute, then the LG must be reviewed. Those of you who are arguing there was no ambiguity have a tough job: you must prove the correct interpretation "must be true," whereas I only need to argue that the incorrect interpretation "could be true" based on the prompt.

We are discussing an LG set in the same manner we might discuss a particular LR or RC question. Doesn't that strike some of you as odd? LG and uncertainty don't mix.

If I were to use the word, in the manner you describe, in everyday conversation, it would sound odd because it would be used incorrectly. It is only in the heat of the test that it was not immediately apparent how it was supposed to be taken because it performs a similar though not identical function in a different context.

Your interpretation "could not be true." Sorry.

[3|ink]

"Ambiguity" in LG must necessarily refer to different potential interpretations, and those interpretations must be considered not according to their "legitimacy" but instead by "whether a reasonable level of uncertainty could lead to another, incorrect, yet supportable, interpretation." I can frame the issue in a different way: the issue is not whether the correct interpretation could result from the prompt but whether or not it must result from the prompt. No one is going to argue with you that there is only one correct interpretation and the other is incorrect. The problem is that a test-taker shouldn't need to rely upon unsuccessfully attempting questions in order to recognize his/her reasonable interpretation of a particular word was the wrong one of two possibilities.

LG is supposed to test many things, the above has not historically been one of them.

Taken from last night's thread. If you had no issue with the wording in the fourth LG, then congratulations. You are not being asked to send a letter of challenge. Those who are being asked know who they are.

Citrus, first, sorry you were so thrown off, I read the deleted thread as well. However, I respectfully disagree with your implying that those who understood the question have no place in the debate and shouldn't argue against sending a letter. I understood what the word meant. It was cut and dry to me. I don't want your mistake to delay the release of my scores or to remove one of my correct answers from scoring. Worst yet is the previous suggestion to remove the entire game from scoring. I think other test takers like myself have a great interest in lobbying to you and those in your situation not to send in letters by trying to prove to you that the mistake was yours and not LSATs.

Not trying to upset you or anything, just pointing out the other side of the coin.

'Based on their exchange, it can be inferred that Citrus and Slax are in disagreement over:

a.) the clarity of the term in question.
b.) whether or not those who read the word unequivocally have a say in this argument.
c.) whether or not coins have more than one side.
d.) whether or not a complaint will delay the scoring process.
e.) whether or not Michael Bay should be castrated.'

[4llin]

"Ambiguity" in LG must necessarily refer to different potential interpretations, and those interpretations must be considered not according to their "legitimacy" but instead by "whether a reasonable level of uncertainty could lead to another, incorrect, yet supportable, interpretation." I can frame the issue in a different way: the issue is not whether the correct interpretation could result from the prompt but whether or not it must result from the prompt. No one is going to argue with you that there is only one correct interpretation and the other is incorrect. The problem is that a test-taker shouldn't need to rely upon unsuccessfully attempting questions in order to recognize his/her reasonable interpretation of a particular word was the wrong one of two possibilities.

LG is supposed to test many things, the above has not historically been one of them.

Taken from last night's thread. If you had no issue with the wording in the fourth LG, then congratulations. You are not being asked to send a letter of challenge. Those who are being asked know who they are.

Citrus, first, sorry you were so thrown off, I read the deleted thread as well. However, I respectfully disagree with your implying that those who understood the question have no place in the debate and shouldn't argue against sending a letter. I understood what the word meant. It was cut and dry to me. I don't want your mistake to delay the release of my scores or to remove one of my correct answers from scoring. Worst yet is the previous suggestion to remove the entire game from scoring. I think other test takers like myself have a great interest in lobbying to you and those in your situation not to send in letters by trying to prove to you that the mistake was yours and not LSATs.

Not trying to upset you or anything, just pointing out the other side of the coin.

This.

And this coming from someone who ran out of time and had to guess on two of the answers on LG 4.

The ambiguity was minimal.

[WestOfTheRest]

Is the crux of the issue here that it was not clear what it meant when they said that X and Y work in the same (term in question)? Well, if I recall correctly they clearly defined what (term in question) was in the directions... And they also defined the other grouping set using a different word. Both were used throughout the game in a consistent fashion.

This here is the nail in the coffin.

There were rules concerning the one aspect of the group, then there were rules concerning the other. They were used in an entirely consistent fashion with the wording in the stimulus.

The fact that your "common knowledge" of the terms made the rules ambiguous is simply your fault. One of the first things you learn when you start studying for the LSAT is to forget the real world and treat the LSAC authors as correct--all the time. What Merriam-Webster says about "term x" and "term y" is of no use.

There was a clear distinction in the stimulus and rules as to what the "ambiguous" term referred to.

Now, Citrus, I respect your disagreement, but your constant crusade against what you perceived as an ambiguity is undermining those of us who interpreted the rule correctly.

The term was not defined in the rules, but nice try. Personally I think that it was common sense what was meant by the term, but some people over thought it.

PS. I'm also someone who understood the rule correctly and most likely got no questions wrong in the section. And I would be angry if they even threw one of the questions out.

[mallard]

As I understand it, "field" referring to the location where someone works is only used in the general sense of "field work" (as opposed to theoretical work or office work or whatever) and never as the descriptor of one of a set of different locations where someone might work.

[bk1]

What mallard said.

TITCR.

[WestOfTheRest]

As I understand it, "field" referring to the location where someone works is only used in the general sense of "field work" (as opposed to theoretical work or office work or whatever) and never as the descriptor of one of a set of different locations where someone might work.

Hey Mallard, you're still floating around here? How's Harvard?

[bk1]

'Based on their exchange, it can be inferred that Citrus and Slax are in disagreement over:

a.) the clarity of the term in question.
b.) whether or not those who read the word unequivocally have a say in this argument.
c.) whether or not coins have more than one side.
d.) whether or not a complaint will delay the scoring process.
e.) whether or not Michael Bay should be castrated.'

It is clearly not E because nobody is in disagreement over that.

[slax]

'Based on their exchange, it can be inferred that Citrus and Slax are in disagreement over:

a.) the clarity of the term in question.
b.) whether or not those who read the word unequivocally have a say in this argument.
c.) whether or not coins have more than one side.
d.) whether or not a complaint will delay the scoring process.
e.) whether or not Michael Bay should be castrated.'

It is clearly not E because nobody is in disagreement over that.

It obviously IS E because Merriam Websters says that castrated's secondary definition is "always the right answer even if the rules of the game as interpreted result in another answer that must be true."

So since MW says it could be defined this way in some contexts, it is true in this context. Clearly, there is no flaw in this reasoning because it is a clear cut case of applying a general principle to an individual case.

[risktaker]

Sorry, but I don't think the LSAC is going to pay any heed to this complaint. The word was defined clearly in the rules of the game. If you didn't read this bit of info then you were probably confused about it. I myself, did not ace the LG section, but found the rules of this game to be straightforward.

[3|ink]

It obviously IS E because Merriam Websters says that castrated's secondary definition is "always the right answer even if the rules of the game as interpreted result in another answer that must be true."

So since MW says it could be defined this way in some contexts, it is true in this context. Clearly, there is no flaw in this reasoning because it is a clear cut case of applying a general principle to an individual case.

The flaw of reasoning in the above argument is that:

a.) it confuses a sufficient condition with a necessary condition.
b.) it holds that which could be true must be true.
c.) begs the question.
d.) a and b are the same answer, and c is also committed.
e.) it makes an inappropriate appeal to authority (Michael Bay).

PS: I know (think) you were being sarcastic, Slax. Just go with it.

[citrustang]

I'm not trying to tell the LSAC what to do. I just think there are sufficient grounds for a challenge. They will decide on their own regarding the best course of action.

The fact that your "common knowledge" of the terms made the rules ambiguous is simply your fault. One of the first things you learn when you start studying for the LSAT is to forget the real world and treat the LSAC authors as correct--all the time. What Merriam-Webster says about "term x" and "term y" is of no use.

Word definitions are not considered "outside knowledge." If you applied your argument to the rest of the test, how would you know what any of the words mean?

Less authoritative, but dictionary.com has the following:

5.the area or region drawn on or serviced by a business or profession; outlying areas where business activities or operations are carried on, as opposed to a home or branch office: our representatives in the field.
6.a job location remote from regular workshop facilities, offices, or the like.

#5 fits what mallard says. #6 fits what I'm saying.