The Official October Waiter's Oasis Forum

seashell.economy · Post by **seashell.economy** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:18 pm

I saw the "nonconsec" from the beginning, but still found Game 3 to be really difficult. I have consistently gone -0 or -1 on my LG pt's the last few months before Oct. 3rd. The last question of Game 3 aggravated me the most. I must have been missing a big inference because I went back through all of the answer choices in the last question TWICE and found a solid reason to knock out every answer. Must have done something wrong...

sanibella · Post by **sanibella** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:24 pm

RZ5646 wrote:
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.

Completely agree. Until the end I got -0 on LR much more consistently than LG.

sanibella · Post by **sanibella** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:24 pm

aprice15 wrote:
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...

RZ5646 · Post by **RZ5646** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:27 pm

How did so many people read that rule wrong???

Nagster5 · Post by **Nagster5** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:35 pm

Post removed.

RZ5646 · Post by **RZ5646** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:36 pm

Nagster5 wrote:
RZ5646 wrote:How did so many people read that rule wrong???
I read it right but it was still the hardest game by far. My heart goes out, that's got to suck getting hemmed up on a reading error. Happened to me more than once on PTs.

The game definitely sucked, I'm just amazed that so many people apparently read the same rule wrong in the same way. Maybe because consecutive is so much more common than nonconsec? Who knows.

br714 · Post by **br714** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:39 pm

RZ5646 wrote:
Nagster5 wrote:
RZ5646 wrote:How did so many people read that rule wrong???
I read it right but it was still the hardest game by far. My heart goes out, that's got to suck getting hemmed up on a reading error. Happened to me more than once on PTs.
The game definitely sucked, I'm just amazed that so many people apparently read the same rule wrong in the same way. Maybe because consecutive is so much more common than nonconsec? Who knows.

Think that's part of it but also the fact that you had a rule phrased in exactly the same way minus the "non" right before it...

venusinfurs16 · Post by **venusinfurs16** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:40 pm

I definitely read it initially as consecutive when I started doing the setup.

splittermcsplit88 · Post by **splittermcsplit88** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:43 pm

damn you lavender, public forums, and elephants.

RZ5646 · Post by **RZ5646** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:45 pm

splittermcsplit88 wrote:damn you lavender, public forums, and elephants.

Yeah fuck that. There were a few really iffy LR questions, and that was one of them.

splittermcsplit88 · Post by **splittermcsplit88** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:52 pm

Also, did everyone bubble d when they guessed? Think I heard that's the one with the better probability?

3pianists · Post by **3pianists** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:55 pm

splittermcsplit88 wrote:Also, did everyone bubble d when they guessed? Think I heard that's the one with the better probability?

At first glance, I saw "personality" instead of "probability" and cracked up.

gamerish · Post by **gamerish** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 9:00 pm

Post removed...

Judgeasaurus_Rex · Post by **Judgeasaurus_Rex** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 9:04 pm

RZ5646 wrote:
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

^^ What he said! I don't think it was as difficult a game as those we have seen before (PT 57 game 3 Dinosaurs, or PT 72 game 4 June 2014 summit company workers). However, I think it was a difficult one at first glance. I've been thinking about that game a lot in hindsight, it just came down to coming up with all possible worlds before hand and then breezing through the questions. I still think that, based on what I have seen here in this thread and what I have discussed with friends, many people fudged up on that game.

Judgeasaurus_Rex · Post by **Judgeasaurus_Rex** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 9:05 pm

RZ5646 wrote:
splittermcsplit88 wrote:damn you lavender, public forums, and elephants.
Yeah fuck that. There were a few really iffy LR questions, and that was one of them.

Was public forums the internet question?

ugg · Post by **ugg** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 9:06 pm

Post removed.

204Wpg · Post by **204Wpg** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 9:09 pm

ChillTomG wrote:
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

That's not what I meant - like I said I went back with only a minute at most and re-read the rule (which I thought made sense, I just read the word wrong at first) and only had time to change one answer. I don't think the rule was nonsense at all.

jasmine138 · Post by **jasmine138** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 9:10 pm

br714 wrote:
RZ5646 wrote:
Nagster5 wrote:
RZ5646 wrote:How did so many people read that rule wrong???
I read it right but it was still the hardest game by far. My heart goes out, that's got to suck getting hemmed up on a reading error. Happened to me more than once on PTs.
The game definitely sucked, I'm just amazed that so many people apparently read the same rule wrong in the same way. Maybe because consecutive is so much more common than nonconsec? Who knows.
Think that's part of it but also the fact that you had a rule phrased in exactly the same way minus the "non" right before it...

YES. IT JUST LOOKED LIKE THE SAME SENTENCE WITH JUST THE SUBJECT SWITCHED UGhhhhh should've checked before proceeding. I even drew out all the possible setups thinking that the rule said consec, spending A LOT OF TIME already before attacking the questions. I only realized that I misread when I came back to check my answers after finishing the entire section.

SirArthurDayne · Post by **SirArthurDayne** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 9:10 pm

Post removed.

RZ5646 · Post by **RZ5646** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 9:17 pm

Judgeasaurus_Rex wrote:
RZ5646 wrote:
splittermcsplit88 wrote:damn you lavender, public forums, and elephants.
Yeah fuck that. There were a few really iffy LR questions, and that was one of them.
Was public forums the internet question?

Yeah... none of the answer choices seemed right to me. I think I got it right, but there's still a good chance I got it wrong.

But I'm going to try to just forget about it. Obsessing over questions we may or may not have missed is kinda pointless.

SirArthurDayne · Post by **SirArthurDayne** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 9:23 pm

Post removed.

EnderWiggin · Post by **EnderWiggin** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 9:25 pm

RZ5646 wrote:
But I'm going to try to just forget about it. Obsessing over questions we may or may not have missed is kinda pointless.

I've worked out the 3rd LG and run the scenarios for two questions I bubbled in without fully running plug and chug for each AC (what you get when you don't set up the possible game boards at the outset) and I'm pretty sure I got one right and one wrong. meh.

scores now pls.

3pianists · Post by **3pianists** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 9:29 pm

EnderWiggin wrote:scores now pls.

+1

zuidengzi · Post by **zuidengzi** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 9:32 pm

GnosisExchange wrote:
I also took the Asia test. I felt much, much worse coming out of this test than I did coming out of the June administration. Ugh!

Definitely won't be breaking the 170 this time around...

I had LG, LR, RC, LG, LR. I was feeling great during the first LG--really felt like I was killing it--and then the last game of the section killed me instead. It sucked because it completely destroyed my confidence and I wasn't able to fully concentrate for the rest of the test. Usually LR is my strength and really wanted to go -0 in LR so I've been drilling it, but with the shadow left by the LG I kept second guessing myself which screwed up my timing. Of course, to add insult to injury, I figured out half way through RC what was wrong with my diagram.... ㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠ

Dang, that''s really too bad; I'm sorry to hear that. Yeah, that last game section was pretty tough. Was that the real logic games section? That first logic games section was too easy for it to have been the real one, right?!

LurkSoHard · Post by **LurkSoHard** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 9:35 pm

Post removed...