20 Feb Make up test - Experimental Section? Forum

[20feb2010]

Which RC section was real?

[schand]

I had:

RC
Games
LR
RC
LR

[gka]

I had:

LR
RC
Games
LR
RC

[bbaggins]

I had:
RC
Games
LR
RC
LR

[xcountryjunkie]

I had:

RC
Games
LR
RC
LR

+1. (Which would make the pre-break RC the experimental one)

[bbaggins]

How do you know that?

[DannyBoy_07]

SO annoying that everyone had 2 RCs.

My first RC had the Darwin passage

My second RC had that HARD AS FUCK Sebastian Bach passage.

I am hoping the second RC was real, because with the exception of the Bach passage, I think I did well.

[bbaggins]

Yeah, I had the same arrangement. Do you remember the comparative reading passage in the 1st RC?

I thought the second one was harder, but statistically speaking, I think the 1st one is the experimental.

[lnc2109]

the comp. reading passage on sec 1 of my test was about non agricultural societies/carbs/tooth decay...and yes, the Bach one was very hard....It took me longer than usual to read that passage and I ran out of time, so I guessed "B" on a couple of them

[DannyBoy_07]

Yeah, I had the same arrangement. Do you remember the comparative reading passage in the 1st RC?

I thought the second one was harder, but statistically speaking, I think the 1st one is the experimental.

My setup was

LR RC LG LR RC

In my first RC section the comparative RC passage dealt with Darwin. Darwin was passage A, Trphyst and Axx was Passage B.

I honestly think this passage was my RC experimental in December, and I don't know if that is a good thing or bad thing.

I am praying my first RC section was experimental.

[schand]

I had:

RC
Games
LR
RC
LR

+1. (Which would make the pre-break RC the experimental one)

Does that mean you had something different for the first RC? I think my first RC comparison passage was about dental caries and the second RC comparison passage was on contracts and cotton shipment. Is this the same for you xcountryjunkie?

[lnc2109]

Yes, actually, i distinctly remember noting on the cover of the test booklet that the copyright date was 2007.

[nonprofit-prophet]

interesting...

[theanswer]

wow....that is quite a find

[blhblahblah]

IBTL

wow....that is quite a find

+1

[lesak1313]

So it seems like Native American women/contract case/?/Bach is real and there were two experimental sections. One experimental had a comparative on Darwin and one experimental had a comparative on tooth decay and carbs. If so, my experimental had the Darwin passage and I'm very happy about that. BTW, my test was LR-RC-LG-LR-RC.

[keg411]

It just means they either used an old international section on the test or an old international section as the experimental section. I always figured they re-used stuff and this test did feel like one of the tests in the late 40's/early 50's. I also had 2 RC's. Maybe everyone had 2 RC's. Maybe different sites had different tests. It's February so I always figure LSAC could do whatever they wanted since it's all undisclosed.

But the test felt different than 57 (June), 58 (Sept) or 59 (Dec). So different than I thought my LG was fake and I was surprised when I had a second RC.

[Big4Jerm3]

Y'all had the exact same reading comp as those of us that took the Dec 09 retake in Houston. I had the same reading comp topics that y'all mentioned as my real RC.

[nonprofit-prophet]

wow so the same test has been given at least three times. that seems sloppy

[Creed Fan]

For the 2/6 test, there was a Part A/Part B RC section about Darwin. Was the one on the make-up a two part section?

[xtrapjawx]

I had RC (about Hispanic Women and their contributions to literature), then analytical reasoning, then LR, then RC ( the infamous Darwin passage), and LR again. I can't wait to get my bloody score!!

[goles5]

My goal was a 170 and at the break I was very excited because i thought i was on pace to exceed that (Ive been comparing my lsat prep to the olympic athletes lately- hence the "on pace").

After the break though i hit a span of about 4-5 LRs towards the end of Section 4... then that one RC passage. Combine that with the fact that the curve back in 2007 could be like -7 and I dont feel so good about it.

[lnc2109]

Wow-were the tests in and around 2007 with -7 curves? I don't have all of the 2007 PTs in front of me right now as of this moment, but I do have a few tests sitting next to my computer right now and I don't know if this would make you feel any better about the possible curve, but the Dec '07 test right in front of me has -11 for 170, Sept '07 has -10 for 170, PT 41 has -12 for 170, and PT 42 has -11 for 170. Of course, past curves on past tests probably did not influence the FEB make-up exam you just took, but the curve may very well be over -7. At least, I hope so, because that Bach passage was just atrocious for me.

[samiam123]

i took the Feb 8th Sabbath observer (3 weeks ago) test and my REAL RC was the comparative reading abt tooth decay and carries....

[booey]

My Order - LR, RC, Games, LR, RC.

Looking at that post on the 2007 international that was definetely my test.

Games - not too bad, hats in a window, something about teachers... overall medium difficulty.

First RC - Darwin comparative with other scientists defying status quo, some other stuff... overall quite easy, I was excited as RC is my worst.

2nd RC - Really really tough - SQUIDs and semiconductors, Bach, Contractual law with an old Cotton case... not sure about the others. 3/4 of these I found extrememly difficult and I'm praying this is not the section that counts. Can people confirm if they had this as their 2nd RC passage? If so I would assume it is the RC that matters and the easy first one was the experiemental. However, I've read that the people on the original test date had a darwin passage, so perhaps that could be the RC that counts? But I kind of doubt they would mash up tests...

I also noticed the LSAT book was copywriten in 2007 which I thought was weird. The writing sample was TM'd in 2008 though, not that it matters, but I disctinctly remember that.

If that was in 2007 internationally, shouldnt there be copies of it somewhere? Or was it always undisclosed?