Post removed. Forum

[monkeylord]

Why does no one remember this game?! Did anyone have a game about people working on certain days of the week?

Did not have experimental LG, and this was not in there.
RC non experimental had to do with innate ability and online currency.
LR-LG-LR-LR-RC

Do you happen to remember what that sequencing game was about?

[ftbchamp232]

I am mixing up my LG sections now. The Museum question in the real section didn't talk about wings of said museum did it? Sorry if this is over the line.

[wealtheow]

Did you also have an LR section that started with a fill in the blanks SA type question? Like in PT70?

ahyup.

[monkeylord]

I am mixing up my LG sections now. The Museum question in the real section didn't talk about wings of said museum did it? Sorry if this is over the line.

No the real one did not

[Puffin]

I am mixing up my LG sections now. The Museum question in the real section didn't talk about wings of said museum did it? Sorry if this is over the line.

paintings from entrance was real wings was experimental.

[usernotfound]

Kind seems like it. I'm not at all confident of my score. Legit, anything between 160-175 is on the table here.

THIS. I didn't think the museums game was as hard as the game before it, but I don't know. I had to guess on like 3 of the questions. I finished RC but the entire time I was doing the Mirrors passage I was thinking, WTF is this. This cannot be real life. What is this mess I've gotten myself into?

Also, did anyone else think the 2nd LR (26 questions) was horrible? I'm going to have nightmares about doctors and wildlife preserves.

I don't want to have to explain a lower score though. So I'm thinking I'm going to cancel.

LR2 was a slaughterhouse. Worst section ever.

This exam better be at least -13 curve.

+1

The difference between LR1 and LR2 was brutal. I wish they wouldn't do that.

[Metaplay]

Just got home. Don't feel great. But this test should have a high curve.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

Okay so I'm not nuts that LR2 was extraordinarily rough

[dosto]

.

[Hotguy]

Kind seems like it. I'm not at all confident of my score. Legit, anything between 160-175 is on the table here.

THIS. I didn't think the museums game was as hard as the game before it, but I don't know. I had to guess on like 3 of the questions. I finished RC but the entire time I was doing the Mirrors passage I was thinking, WTF is this. This cannot be real life. What is this mess I've gotten myself into?

Also, did anyone else think the 2nd LR (26 questions) was horrible? I'm going to have nightmares about doctors and wildlife preserves.

I don't want to have to explain a lower score though. So I'm thinking I'm going to cancel.

LR2 was a slaughterhouse. Worst section ever.

This exam better be at least -13 curve.

+1

The difference between LR1 and LR2 was brutal. I wish they wouldn't do that.

Aside from LR tho, everything was legit average or below average, let's be honest.

[Otunga]

I'm feeling a -11 curve. LR felt meh but not as difficult as Oct. LG was fucking hard, especially relative to Oct which was an easy section. And I felt in the zone on RC but...that doesn't mean much. There was one question in particular asking for something substantially supported in the text on RC that didn't even have one attractive answer in my book. One LR question in particular about precipitation was problematic. Almost guaranteed I got it wrong.

And for 101 question tests, -10 is relatively rare I think. But if it were 100 questions, I'd definitely lean towards -10 as the curve. The test didn't feel hard. LG just rattled me.

[ftbchamp232]

I don't remember some of the games people are talking about in the real section, first section black out I guess. Same thing happened last test, I couldn't remember one thing from the first section.

I used to think it was just fatigue that made me think they were different levels, but I felt fresh through the whole thing and LR2 was definitely a more difficult section in general.

Also, I mentioned it earlier but did anyone notice the technology question on the lsat answer sheet? Not the actual test. Could LSAT be making moves towards digital testing?

[jcccc]

I would say LG was below average relatively but that fucking Mirrors passage by itself brings up the RC difficulty above average. That had to be one of the most dense passages in recent years.

[usernotfound]

^
I probably agree. LR1: easy, LG: eh, pretty easy but game 2(or 3) was time consuming for me at least which brought me down to the wire on the last game. No really hard games thankfully. RC was easier than recent ones imo. That lr sucked though.

[dazedandconfused13]

So we have established that real LG had 23 questions, right?

I remember game 1 had 5 questions. Does anyone remember how many the last game had. I am hoping it had 8. I did really badly on the 2nd and 3rd games.

Thanks!

[Hotguy]

I'm feeling a -11 curve. LR felt meh but not as difficult as Oct. LG was fucking hard, especially relative to Oct which was an easy section. And I felt in the zone on RC but...that doesn't mean much. There was one question in particular asking for something substantially supported in the text on RC that didn't even have one attractive answer in my book. One LR question in particular about precipitation was problematic. Almost guaranteed I got it wrong.

And for 101 question tests, -10 is relatively rare I think. But if it were 100 questions, I'd definitely lean towards -10 as the curve. The test didn't feel hard. LG just rattled me.

Why do you think LG was hard? It seemed average, definitely easier than 67,68. Are you sure it just wasn't your nerves? I thought it was pretty easy...

[worried0L]

I would say LG was below average relatively but that fucking Mirrors passage by itself brings up the RC difficulty above average. That had to be one of the most dense passages in recent years.

[wealtheow]

Also, I mentioned it earlier but did anyone notice the technology question on the lsat answer sheet? Not the actual test. Could LSAT be making moves towards digital testing?

i did notice that, and that's exactly what i was wondering! i hope not. the old timey testing is so charming.

[nervouspervus]

Delete!

[Hotguy]

So we have established that real LG had 23 questions, right?

I remember game 1 had 5 questions. Does anyone remember how many the last game had. I am hoping it had 8. I did really badly on the 2nd and 3rd games.

Thanks!

Summarized or not is real

[star fox]

If my score goes down should I re-take or kill myself?

[Otunga]

I'm feeling a -11 curve. LR felt meh but not as difficult as Oct. LG was fucking hard, especially relative to Oct which was an easy section. And I felt in the zone on RC but...that doesn't mean much. There was one question in particular asking for something substantially supported in the text on RC that didn't even have one attractive answer in my book. One LR question in particular about precipitation was problematic. Almost guaranteed I got it wrong.

And for 101 question tests, -10 is relatively rare I think. But if it were 100 questions, I'd definitely lean towards -10 as the curve. The test didn't feel hard. LG just rattled me.

Why do you think LG was hard? It seemed average, definitely easier than 67,68. Are you sure it just wasn't your nerves? I thought it was pretty easy...

I -0ed 70 LG and that felt extremely easy. 71 did not.

The two rule sub questions had a lot to do with it. They rattled me and I made the mistake (as I have many times) of getting trapped by them. Additionally, I sort of thought it was the exp after I saw the 2nd rule sub question. I was desperately pulling for another LG section to appear. (Delete the post if it's too revealing.)

[dosto]

.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

If my score goes down should I re-take or kill myself?

Good lord dude it's a test, calm down

[dreamofNYC]

I had LR-LG-LR-LR-RC
To clarify:
for those of you who had exp. LG, the real games were: 1:simple sequencing game ( can't remember the specs.) 2: Grouping game ( something about Kent and F and L? Blah blah)3:writing assignment/discussion game 4:paintings sequenced from nearest to furthest from a gallery's main entrance.
RC: 1:abstract african american painter 2:gaming/taxation 3: superior talent (innate or learned)? 4: MIRRORS

Ok so there seems to be a lot of unanswered speculation as to which LR sections was exp.
In my set up, the questions I remember most were distributed as follows:
LR1(25): complete the sentence style question as first question.
global warming and ice caps
sheep herders and consumerate wealth
LR 2(25): I'm totally drawing a blank here...
LR 3(26): KIDS!
wildlife "on the contrary blah blah survey blah"
infectious diseases
Can anyone who didn't have LR experimental confirm that they had a question about sheep herders and wool? I'm pretty sure LR 3 was legit because everyone seems to remember KIDS, ex section or not.

I think LR(2) had 26 Q and was exp. The consensus is and hope LR1 is real.