How Many People Get Perfect 180? Forum

[Geetar Man]

I don't really want to get involved in either side of the debate, but isn't this the document in question?

--ImageRemoved--

BOOM!

[happyshapy]

I don't really want to get involved in either side of the debate, but isn't this the document in question?

--ImageRemoved--

You joined this forum recently and acted as if you had just met Dave Hall. Now you're posting his purported IRR? This story's getting stranger by the minute.

Not really that strange. His IRR is posted on Velocity LSAT's website. Go look for it yourself. Just like Dave said though, it doesn't seem like any proof will get you to stop your weird vendetta...

[Soba306]

This IRR, which Dave Hall published on his website earlier today, is a FAKE.

http://www.velocitylsat.com/meet-dave-hall

Check out the "Number of Credited Responses", and "Number of Responses Not Credited" fields in the lower left corner. ON EVERY AUTHENTIC IRR FROM AT LEAST THE PAST TWO DECADES, THOSE TWO NUMBERS HAVE BEEN LEFT-JUSTIFIED WITH EACH OTHER, BUT ON THE IRR DAVE PUBLISHED, THEY AREN'T!

Now check out the website TatNurner linked to earlier in this thread:

http://www.testmasters.net/Lsat/Faculty-Instructors

This page has links to hundreds of IRRs. Every time those two numbers appear they are left-justifed with each other, and on the more modern IRRs those two numbers are also left-justified with the "Test Date" directly above. For example, check out the IRRs for Jeff Benjamin and Daniel Sockwell, who both got 180s, and the IRR for Stacy Adelman, who took the September 2009 test. Do you see how the three figures in the lower left corner are all left-justified with each other and line up perfectly? On Dave's purported IRR, none of those figures line up.

The "Number of Credited Responses" and the "Number of Responses Not Credited" are also left-justified with each other on all of the older IRRs. For example, check out Doug Lawrence's IRR from way back in 1996. The same holds true for all 25 of Robin Singh's IRRs, which spanned 1988-2003:

http://www.testmasters.net/Lsat/Perfection

This is the SECOND FORGERY Dave Hall has published in support of his score claims. And even though he put plenty of effort into fabricating this document, he still managed to screw it up.  His recklessness is almost as mindboggling as his duplicity.

[bernaldiaz]

This IRR, which Dave Hall published on his website earlier today, is a FAKE.

http://www.velocitylsat.com/meet-dave-hall

Check out the "Number of Credited Responses", and "Number of Responses Not Credited" fields in the lower left corner. ON EVERY AUTHENTIC IRR FROM AT LEAST THE PAST TWO DECADES, THOSE TWO NUMBERS HAVE BEEN LEFT-JUSTIFIED WITH EACH OTHER, BUT ON THE IRR DAVE PUBLISHED, THEY AREN'T!

Now check out the website TatNurner linked to earlier in this thread:

http://www.testmasters.net/Lsat/Faculty-Instructors

This page has links to hundreds of IRRs. Every time those two numbers appear they are left-justifed with each other, and on the more modern IRRs those two numbers are also left-justified with the "Test Date" directly above. For example, check out the IRRs for Jeff Benjamin and Daniel Sockwell, who both got 180s, and the IRR for Stacy Adelman, who took the September 2009 test. Do you see how the three figures in the lower left corner are all left-justified with each other and line up perfectly? On Dave's purported IRR, none of those figures line up.

The "Number of Credited Responses" and the "Number of Responses Not Credited" are also left-justified with each other on all of the older IRRs. For example, check out Doug Lawrence's IRR from way back in 1996. The same holds true for all 25 of Robin Singh's IRRs, which spanned 1988-2003:

http://www.testmasters.net/Lsat/Perfection

This is the SECOND FORGERY Dave Hall has published in support of his score claims. And even though he put plenty of effort into fabricating this document, he still managed to screw it up.  His recklessness is almost as mindboggling as his duplicity.

Yeah, I've been on Dave's side the whole time, but I have to admit that person who had just joined linking to Dave's IRR is definitely a bit suspect.

[Geetar Man]

Yeah, I've been on Dave's side the whole time, but I have to admit that person who had just joined linking to Dave's IRR is definitely a bit suspect.

+1

[dailygrind]

Yeah, that's someone's alternate account. I banned the alt, and banned the main for a bit, too.

[Bernie]

Hmm, the number in Jon Cioschi and Vani Kilakkathi on the TM site also seem to be off-kilter. Much more likely that the formatting on the lsat reports is inconsistent, a theory that my brief look through the TM website seemed to confirm.

Now, if you can show me a valid score report from the Sept 2009 score that has a correct question tally of 3 digits and has different justification, I might buy your "proof".

And why is it no one seems to be asking the real question:

Where is his birth certificate!!!! Why doesn't he just release his birth certificate???

[suspicious android]

This IRR, which Dave Hall published on his website earlier today, is a FAKE.

Hmm, I don't know if you've got anything here, but it's worth looking into. Looks like they change up the formatting for the IRR's pretty frequently.

But I'll say this for you, I would not try to pull anything over on you if I met you in real life.

[Dave Hall]

.

[Soba306]

Hmm, the number in Jon Cioschi and Vani Kilakkathi on the TM site also seem to be off-kilter. Much more likely that the formatting on the lsat reports is inconsistent, a theory that my brief look through the TM website seemed to confirm.

Now, if you can show me a valid score report from the Sept 2009 score that has a correct question tally of 3 digits and has different justification, I might buy your "proof".

There is nothing “off-kilter” about the numbers on those two score reports. They’re left-justified like all the others. It’s just that a 1 is more slender than a 9, so the 9 appears to stick out a little more. This is the same effect you see in any word processing program. Dave’s “scoresheet” is the one and only anomaly here.

Also, there are three digits in the “Number of Credited Responses” field on Jeff Benjamin’s score report. Guess what? They line up perfectly. So you think the LSAC must have changed their formatting just for September 2009 test takers who got 100 or more questions correct? Is that what you're trying to say? 


 

This IRR, which Dave Hall published on his website earlier today, is a FAKE.

Hmm, I don't know if you've got anything here, but it's worth looking into. Looks like they change up the formatting for the IRR's pretty frequently.

But I'll say this for you, I would not try to pull anything over on you if I met you in real life.

Thanks droid. I'll take that as a compliment!

[20130312]

And why is it no one seems to be asking the real question:

Where is his birth certificate!!!! Why doesn't he just release his birth certificate???

You must have missed out on page 6.

Release the long form birth certificate, you damn Kenyan!

[dissonance1848]

Dave Hall's LSAT reports seem legit. He doesn't have all perfect 180s, but remains at 177 and above, which makes sense to me. Given the difference in the curves of the test, missing 2-4 questions per test, adjusted for differences of how one feels, testing environment, etc., seems very reasonable.

[suspicious android]

You must have missed out on page 6.

Wow, you're pretty protective of your jokes, huh?

[20130312]

You must have missed out on page 6.

Wow, you're pretty protective of your jokes, huh?

I'm #1. No one can take that from me.

[dailygrind]

From the book 'Predictably Irrational' : A good percentage of Harvard MBA students cheated/lied to a small extent. If you start drawing out LSAT/GMAT TEST reports of all LSAT/GMAT tutors you will find 90% would lie/hide details to a small extent. Just because Dave's score show a 177, I consider them true. Because if they were counterfeit, why wouldnot he counterfeit a perfect report. I request mods to delete all posts that have hijacked this beautiful thread(including my post).

I'm moving this here, not deleting any of the other hijacking posts, and banning you.

[gaud]

You must have missed out on page 6.

Wow, you're pretty protective of your jokes, huh?

I'm #1. No one can take that from me.

Well played sir.

[dailygrind]

Alright, looks like we're done here.