The Official October Waiter's Oasis Forum

aprice15 · Post by **aprice15** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:02 pm

danit921 wrote:Hi! I was wondering if someone remembers the break down of the number of questions for each RC-- trying to make sure I didnt bubble incorrectly.

I had 3 - 26, 26, and 25 (one of the 26 question sections was the experimental).

Judgeasaurus_Rex · Post by **Judgeasaurus_Rex** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:08 pm

texasrangersjb wrote:
SirArthurDayne wrote:
mornincounselor wrote:
nlee10 wrote:Was LG unusually easy for you guys?
No, but it should have been. Game 3 played with lots of our minds.
Game 3 man, game 3. I actually 2 two questions, skipped the game to so game 4, then came back to it. It ended up being a good idea, game 4 was a breeze.
Turning to game 4 was such a momentum changer during my test, it was a God-send

I think if most people messed up on game 3 it will work well for the curve. Does anyone else agree?

splittermcsplit88 · Post by **splittermcsplit88** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:10 pm

Judgeasaurus_Rex wrote:
texasrangersjb wrote:
SirArthurDayne wrote:
mornincounselor wrote:
nlee10 wrote:Was LG unusually easy for you guys?
No, but it should have been. Game 3 played with lots of our minds.
Game 3 man, game 3. I actually 2 two questions, skipped the game to so game 4, then came back to it. It ended up being a good idea, game 4 was a breeze.
Turning to game 4 was such a momentum changer during my test, it was a God-send
I think if most people messed up on game 3 it will work well for the curve. Does anyone else agree?

Wouldn't it be balanced out by the easy rc?

flash21 · Post by **flash21** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:11 pm

I feel like the LSAT has been such a big part of my early adult life LOL. this is so sad.

RZ5646 · Post by **RZ5646** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:16 pm

splittermcsplit88 wrote:
Judgeasaurus_Rex wrote:
texasrangersjb wrote:
SirArthurDayne wrote:
mornincounselor wrote:
nlee10 wrote:Was LG unusually easy for you guys?
No, but it should have been. Game 3 played with lots of our minds.
Game 3 man, game 3. I actually 2 two questions, skipped the game to so game 4, then came back to it. It ended up being a good idea, game 4 was a breeze.
Turning to game 4 was such a momentum changer during my test, it was a God-send
I think if most people messed up on game 3 it will work well for the curve. Does anyone else agree?
Wouldn't it be balanced out by the easy rc?

Still gives you an advantage if you completed game 3 when you were "expected" to fuck it up

venusinfurs16 · Post by **venusinfurs16** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:23 pm

New here and checking in after much lurking. Good luck/congrats etc as appropriate, all!

I had RC LR LR LG LR. I found the first LR easy, the 2nd LR a little difficult at the end as I was rushing a bit more, and the 3rd LR mostly fine but with a few weird questions (ostriches, as others have noted.....). Trying to figure out which LR was experimental but cannot even remember what questions I had in the first section. I was a little thrown off on all of them because I was busy freaking out about that last RC passage but managed to regain composure for LG after the break.

Also trying to decide whether or not to cancel. Ran out of time on RC on swans because I spent too much time on beads and had to guess on most of swans, when I have always finished RC with time to spare and absolute worst ever past RC performance on a PT was -4.

May have had some Woodford. See some of you on the December study thread, and wish everybody the best! In conclusion, fuck the swans, and hope you all are able to enjoy the week ahead. Excited to get in some camping and climbing with friends before I buckle down again.

SirArthurDayne · Post by **SirArthurDayne** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:29 pm

Post removed.

ugg · Post by **ugg** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:30 pm

Post removed.

SirArthurDayne · Post by **SirArthurDayne** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:31 pm

Post removed.

204Wpg · Post by **204Wpg** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:32 pm

I feel like Game 3 really wasn't supposed to be overly hard, it was just unfortunate word placement / sentence structure (I didn't think the sentences were hard to understand, just that they were the exact same sentence except one word changed, so I'm guessing I looked at the Name, looked away, looked back and say "consecutively" because all the words around it were identical).

But yeah, I suppose if a lot of people messed that up it would be reflected in the curve, of course for those looking to score in the 173+ range I'm sure you would have had to not mess that up.

RZ5646 · Post by **RZ5646** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:34 pm

SirArthurDayne wrote:
RZ5646 wrote:
Still gives you an advantage if you completed game 3 when you were "expected" to fuck it up

Did you guys completely mess the game up? It was hard but I brute forced my way through 3 of the questions. Then guessed on the last two.

No I think I brute forced my way through it without incident. Didn't make that simplifying initial inference that some of you are talking about though.

RZ5646 · Post by **RZ5646** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:35 pm

204Wpg wrote:for those looking to score in the 173+ range I'm sure you would have had to not mess that up.

I think you can usually still miss like 8 questions and still get 173, right? And that game only had 5 questions, some of which anybody should have been able to get.

ChillTomG · Post by **ChillTomG** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:35 pm

I highly doubt that the "hard" game is going to affect the curve, at all. Why? While the typical high scorer (170+) is going to miss several RC and LR questions, he will get -0 on games. Even a "hard" games section like this one will have only a tiny impact since most high scorers are still not going to miss any questions in the section. Yes, it might have more of an impact for the average test taker, but for an elite test taker, going from -0 on games with 5 minutes to spare to -0 with 1 minute to spare is not going to affect the curve significantly at the top.

ChillTomG · Post by **ChillTomG** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:37 pm

RZ5646 wrote:
204Wpg wrote:for those looking to score in the 173+ range I'm sure you would have had to not mess that up.
I think you can usually still miss like 8 questions and still get 173, right? And that game only had 5 questions, some of which anybody should have been able to get.

When I take tests I am counting on getting -0 on games and screwing up elsewhere! (an additional -5 on top of my usual misses would completely throw me off, so I am happy I got all of the questions for all of the games)

flash21 · Post by **flash21** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:38 pm

Can someone let me know if they had the same experience ..

Edit:: I'm attempting to describe how I did the elim rule.

So for game three, I elimination rule'd 3 of the 5 out and was left with 2 left. At this point I was like WTF, so I just drew one game board out and saw the contradiction and eliminated it.. did anyone else have to do this or did I just do that question stupidly?

redfred22 · Post by **redfred22** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:38 pm

204Wpg wrote:I feel like Game 3 really wasn't supposed to be overly hard, it was just unfortunate word placement / sentence structure (I didn't think the sentences were hard to understand, just that they were the exact same sentence except one word changed, so I'm guessing I looked at the Name, looked away, looked back and say "consecutively" because all the words around it were identical).

But yeah, I suppose if a lot of people messed that up it would be reflected in the curve, of course for those looking to score in the 173+ range I'm sure you would have had to not mess that up.

So you actually went back and read this rule at the end of the section and just didn't have time and so now you are sure that the rule was nonconsec, or someone told you that you messed that up?

RZ5646 · Post by **RZ5646** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:43 pm

PAGING OP: MAKE A DAMN POLL ALREADY

ChillTomG · Post by **ChillTomG** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:47 pm

redfred22 wrote:
204Wpg wrote:I feel like Game 3 really wasn't supposed to be overly hard, it was just unfortunate word placement / sentence structure (I didn't think the sentences were hard to understand, just that they were the exact same sentence except one word changed, so I'm guessing I looked at the Name, looked away, looked back and say "consecutively" because all the words around it were identical).

But yeah, I suppose if a lot of people messed that up it would be reflected in the curve, of course for those looking to score in the 173+ range I'm sure you would have had to not mess that up.

So you actually went back and read this rule at the end of the section and just didn't have time and so now you are sure that the rule was nonconsec, or someone told you that you messed that up?

The rule was nonconsec

sanibella · Post by **sanibella** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:47 pm

ChillTomG wrote:I highly doubt that the "hard" game is going to affect the curve, at all. Why? While the typical high scorer (170+) is going to miss several RC and LR questions, he will get -0 on games. Even a "hard" games section like this one will have only a tiny impact since most high scorers are still not going to miss any questions in the section. Yes, it might have more of an impact for the average test taker, but for an elite test taker, going from -0 on games with 5 minutes to spare to -0 with 1 minute to spare is not going to affect the curve significantly at the top.

I am impressed you both asked and answered your own question, you elite, you.

RZ5646 · Post by **RZ5646** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:55 pm

sanibella wrote:
ChillTomG wrote:I highly doubt that the "hard" game is going to affect the curve, at all. Why? While the typical high scorer (170+) is going to miss several RC and LR questions, he will get -0 on games. Even a "hard" games section like this one will have only a tiny impact since most high scorers are still not going to miss any questions in the section. Yes, it might have more of an impact for the average test taker, but for an elite test taker, going from -0 on games with 5 minutes to spare to -0 with 1 minute to spare is not going to affect the curve significantly at the top.
I am impressed you both asked and answered your own question, you elite, you.

I think he's wrong though because every question counts the same in the end. If you have a really hard game, it adds some points to the curve. Period.

Even assuming that the elite student gets -0 on games no matter what (which we shouldn't assume), hard games still contribute to the curve and give one more leeway in the other sections.

sanibella · Post by **sanibella** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:56 pm

RZ5646 wrote:
sanibella wrote:
ChillTomG wrote:I highly doubt that the "hard" game is going to affect the curve, at all. Why? While the typical high scorer (170+) is going to miss several RC and LR questions, he will get -0 on games. Even a "hard" games section like this one will have only a tiny impact since most high scorers are still not going to miss any questions in the section. Yes, it might have more of an impact for the average test taker, but for an elite test taker, going from -0 on games with 5 minutes to spare to -0 with 1 minute to spare is not going to affect the curve significantly at the top.
I am impressed you both asked and answered your own question, you elite, you.
I think he's wrong though because every question counts the same in the end. If you have a really hard game, it adds some points to the curve. Period.

Even assuming that the elite student gets -0 on games no matter what (which we shouldn't assume), hard games still contribute to the curve and give one more leeway in the other sections.

I agree with you, RZ.

pittsburghpirates · Post by **pittsburghpirates** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:05 pm

Post removed.

TheProdigal · Post by **TheProdigal** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:07 pm

I don't think he's entirely wrong, in that a "hard" LG will add fewer points to the curve than a similarly "hard" LR or RC will, because of a greater number of people missing none anyways.

Game three broke me (this will probably be repeated in all of my posts).

RZ5646 · Post by **RZ5646** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:09 pm

TheProdigal wrote:I don't think he's entirely wrong, in that a "hard" LG will add fewer points to the curve than a similarly "hard" LR or RC will, because of a greater number of people missing none anyways.

Game three broke me (this will probably be repeated in all of my posts).

I think what he's really trying to say is that there is no such thing as hard logic games, which I think is false. Many people find LG easier, but it varies a lot. I still struggle to get -0 on LG, but I routinely get -0 on LR, and I'm sure there's some lucky bastard out there who gets -0 on RC every time.

aprice15 · Post by **aprice15** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:14 pm

aprice15 wrote:
danit921 wrote:Hi! I was wondering if someone remembers the break down of the number of questions for each RC-- trying to make sure I didnt bubble incorrectly.
I had 3 - 26, 26, and 25 (one of the 26 question sections was the experimental).

That thing where you CAN'T READ and answer a TLS post incorrectly.

Hopefully not indicative of my performance in reading comp...