LR LG LR LR RC - Which is experimental? Forum

[puff0ffluff]

I had a question near the end of my 3rd LR (section 4) about flower fragrances/colors. I went LR (25)- LG- LR (26)-break LR (25)- RC

But I don't remember anything with hot springs being first.... I'm going to cry if my fourth LR was experimental because I thought I crushed it.

i'm with u ;_; hoping kid-with-girlfriend is just a troll

I like the nickname. If you look at the other topic though, I'm not the only one saying it. I understand how you feel though, I wish I was trolling as well, I liked section 4 more than 3.

did u have the 25-26-25 or the 25-26-26?

also, does anyone who did not have the 25-26-25 have a bunch of questions in the beginning of the 25Q section with.... almost only two interchanging letter answers? or where the answers all fairly evenly distributed?

[dietcoke0]

Or 102. No real set number, just whatever they're feeling

So how the hell are people so opinionated about which section was experimental?

Because of what is the general conclusions

I had LG, LR, RC, RC, LR

If I remember a LR question, then it was obviously scored. So by deductive reasoning, people can figure which one of their LR was real and which one wasn't

[tedler]

.

[dietcoke0]

Then you had all three sections, and you should be asking those of us who had RC and LG exp which one was your EXP.

[thelawschoolproject]

I had LG-LR-RC-RC-LR. And I had a long-ass half page principle question.

+1

[mickeyD]

For those whose LR1 was 25 questions, "hot spots" one of the first questions (if not the first, right?)

or was that LR2 (section 3)

[dietcoke0]

Had Hot spots, but don't remember anything about it. Had RC EXp Sec

[happyshapy]

-

[Bstbll]

was heavy metal anti-bio in the same section as mickey's pizza?

No. Heavy metal anti-bio was the same section as the question about game show prizes. Mickey's pizza was in the section with lots of long principle questions, including one about MOD EDIT

[CaptAdams]

I had LR, LG, LR, LR, RC and the second LR was experimental for me, and here's why: First, I had 25, 26, 26 questions, and second, I had seen one of the questions in the second LR, verbatim, before on a practice test.

[TMC116]

was heavy metal anti-bio in the same section as mickey's pizza?

No. Heavy metal anti-bio was the same section as the question about game show prizes. Mickey's pizza was in the section with lots of long principle questions, including one about justifying accessing someone's computer without permission.

which counted?

[senorhosh]

was heavy metal anti-bio in the same section as mickey's pizza?

No. Heavy metal anti-bio was the same section as the question about game show prizes. Mickey's pizza was in the section with lots of long principle questions, including one about justifying accessing someone's computer without permission.

Anyone know which of the metal anti-bio one or the pizza one is the same section as the alzheimer/microglia one?

[LuckySpurs]

my test order was lr lg lr lr rc

lr-movie rental place
lr-I can't remember anything
lr-computer question/principle
I know for certain I had the pizza place question, crying monkeys, the tornadoes, govt democracy, a ton of flaw questions and assumptions questions tended to be toward the end.

Did anyone with only two LRs have the movie rental question?

[Mitterrand]

I remember on my lsat LR section i had one question about lawyers? that was a half a page.

I had LG LR LG RC LR so if you had a half page bs question that related to lawyers, that section is real.

Also the one with the heavy metals and antibiotics was a real section. I think i had that in the 5th section as well.

[nygrrrl]

Good morning, all. Happy Day After LSAT Day.
Just a quick reminder of our policy on discussing the test:

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: We've given repeated warnings about discussing specifics of the test. That includes strategies, specific answers, types of games, the distribution of answers across the tests, and soliciting PMs to discuss these things off the boards (and this is not an all-inclusive list). If you have done anything like that, I strongly suggest you edit your posts now, because if we find them when reviewing the thread (which I'm starting to do), we will give you a 1-day ban.

And also, if you see a post that is remotely questionable, do NOT quote it.
Thank you!

[puff0ffluff]

they can go ahead and ban if it makes them feel better. all these people just went through hell and back. a lot of people are staking their futures on this test. what people say will have no effect on their tests scores anyways, so u know what? enjoy.

[nygrrrl]

Actually Puff, it doesn't make us feel better. We all went through that test too, remember? But these are the rules of the forum (and LSAC, by the way.) This is one of the things TLS takes quite seriously. Here. To be more clear:

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.

[senorhosh]

Actually Puff, it doesn't make us feel better. We all went through that test too, remember? But these are the rules of the forum (and LSAC, by the way.) This is one of the things TLS takes quite seriously. Here. To be more clear:

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.

Is discussing the topic of a question a violation (on this board and to lsac)?

For example:
"anyone remember if there was a question in LR about flesh eating zombies"
.. which is pretty much this whole thread.
I will edit my posts if they are

[puff0ffluff]

sure, if they think ban warnings will scare people from posting, they can continue believing that. In case no one else noticed, a lot of people joined yesterday right after the test. I don't really think they care if they get banned. In the long run, they lose nothing by posting what they want to know, but have a potential of gaining information. To a lot of people, it's worth the risk.

Besides, TLS doesn't really benefit from banning users, do they? Banning users will make it so that these people can't report their admissions stats later on, which I'm sure can't be good for TLS admissions graphs. And let's face it, the past admissions graphs is one of the primary factors that keeps traffic on this site.

[kaiser]

Either the 1st or 3rd was experimental but there is no way for you to know unless you discuss the questions. DO NOT make assumptions based on difficulty or wording of the questions.

[rich_4]

was heavy metal anti-bio in the same section as mickey's pizza?

No. Heavy metal anti-bio was the same section as the question about game show prizes. Mickey's pizza was in the section with lots of long principle questions, including one about justifying accessing someone's computer without permission.

Anyone know which of the metal anti-bio one or the pizza one is the same section as the alzheimer/microglia one?

pizza was in the same section as Alzheimer's.

[HellOnHeels]

was heavy metal anti-bio in the same section as mickey's pizza?

No. Heavy metal anti-bio was the same section as the question about game show prizes. Mickey's pizza was in the section with lots of long principle questions, including one about justifying accessing someone's computer without permission.

Anyone know which of the metal anti-bio one or the pizza one is the same section as the alzheimer/microglia one?

pizza was in the same section as Alzheimer's.

so was the pizza in the experimental or was it a scored section?

[tyro]

Sounds like the Alzheimer's section was real because everyone seems to have had it.

[nygrrrl]

Besides, TLS doesn't really benefit from banning users, do they? Banning users will make it so that these people can't report their admissions stats later on, which I'm sure can't be good for TLS admissions graphs. And let's face it, the past admissions graphs is one of the primary factors that keeps traffic on this site.

Lol. Your reasoning is flawed. Complain about this one all you like but this is a strictly-enforced, LSAC-driven rule.

Senorhosh - Nah, that's vague enough to get a pass. It's more of a, "If you had the flesh eating zombies question, did you get A? Because I know it had to be A or C and I love those parallel reasoning questions!"
(LSAC would see THAT as a biiiig no no.)

[kwais]

sure, if they think ban warnings will scare people from posting, they can continue believing that. In case no one else noticed, a lot of people joined yesterday right after the test. I don't really think they care if they get banned. In the long run, they lose nothing by posting what they want to know, but have a potential of gaining information. To a lot of people, it's worth the risk.

Besides, TLS doesn't really benefit from banning users, do they? Banning users will make it so that these people can't report their admissions stats later on, which I'm sure can't be good for TLS admissions graphs. And let's face it, the past admissions graphs is one of the primary factors that keeps traffic on this site.