Top Law Schools

I've heard some mention of the crazy answer pattern on a LR section but can we get some confirmation from some people who normally ace LR? I feel like I am one of those people but this answer pattern really got under my skin. If its legit, then its one of the dirtiest I've ever seen. Although I wouldn't be surprised if I missed maybe 1 or 2 in key spots which would then make everything else look pretty much normal.

PM'd

wat

if your are talking about the june lsat yes the pattern seemed a bit off.

After I turned in my test, I felt like I was going to cry because I looked at the answer sheet and saw I had like two of a letter and tons of two. So I know how you felt lol.

I can't remember the answer pattern I had. Since I bubble so infrequently, it doesn't really give me an oppurtunity to look that often. I doubt it was as bad as some others though... there's been plenty of PT's with like 4 or letters in a row, or 3x's, 1y, and 3 more x's. You just have to come to terms with the fact that this does NOT matter. If LSAC didn't do this a good amount, you could be just as inclined to guess the letter that you haven't bubbled that much, and that just wouldn't be fair.

The Oct. 09 answer pattern had a diagonal cascade: e.g. a, b, c, d, e (or reverse). I had done a lot of the official practice tests, and I noted that I had never seen a credited full cascade across the column before. But here I had one on my answer sheet on my actual LSAT. I looked over the answers for each of those questions again, and each looked right. After the exam, I came to TLS, and only one person noted the cascade out of many test takers. On the basis of this, I thought for sure I had missed one or more of the questions. Turns out that I got them all correct, and we had the first cascade (on released tests).

the cascade or the reverse cascade (edcba) is a beautiful coincidence in the testing world that makes me sit back and smile whenever I see it. this was no such thing. trust me, i wouldn't be freakin out about a cascade. it was way worse. still, i think you are right, its nothing to cancel over.

nireca wrote:the cascade or the reverse cascade (edcba) is a beautiful coincidence in the testing world that makes me sit back and smile whenever I see it. this was no such thing. trust me, i wouldn't be freakin out about a cascade. it was way worse. still, i think you are right, its nothing to cancel over.

Yeah, I didn't really think about cancelling over it, because just one answer out of the pattern ruins the whole picture. So I thought that at most I had missed one in that section, but I thought I did well overall, especially in the games and LR. So the pattern I saw was not the "most absurd answer pattern ever". Just an example of a unique answer pattern that LSAC for some reason deliberately avoided before.

Well, I hope that the pattern you saw on your answer sheet corresponds to the credited answers!

Freaked me out too. I bubble after each 2 pages in LR, so I didn't notice it until I started to bubble. But I didn't have enough time to review it, so I just turned it in assuming i missed one or more.

nireca wrote:the cascade or the reverse cascade (edcba) is a beautiful coincidence in the testing world that makes me sit back and smile whenever I see it. this was no such thing. trust me, i wouldn't be freakin out about a cascade. it was way worse. still, i think you are right, its nothing to cancel over.

Ya it was for sure not a cascade one this time.

^ The cascade is in reference to Oct 09 and not just recently, right?

nvm. i don't remember what i put where anymore. Except one section 4 in a row, one different, three in a row. so many in a row.

Knockglock wrote:Freaked me out too. I bubble after each 2 pages in LR, so I didn't notice it until I started to bubble. But I didn't have enough time to review it, so I just turned it in assuming i missed one or more.

+1

How can otherwise intelligent and logical people be so convinced that scantron answer patterns offer some insight into whether one did well or not?

I tested between 167 - 175 on my PTs. Definitely noticed a weird bubbling pattern on Monday's LSAT. Very unsettling when the section is over and I noticed it on the scantron, but I felt that the section went just as well as any other in practice (normal range: -0 to -3).

This thread restores some hope that I still could have crushed the section even with the weird bubbling.

sundance95 wrote:How can otherwise intelligent and logical people be so convinced that scantron answer patterns offer some insight into whether one did well or not?

Let me explain. I took 55 prep tests. Every PT I could get my hand on from 7-59, plus SuperPrep A,B,C, and June '07. I had a 4 in a row of a letter exactly TWICE. One of those times the pattern was correct, the other time it wasn't correct. Only one time out of 55 PT's did I get a 4 in a row and it was correct. So when I saw a 4 in a row on test day, how the fuck did you think I felt?

Now that is why.

sundance95 wrote:How can otherwise intelligent and logical people be so convinced that scantron answer patterns offer some insight into whether one did well or not?

Haha, I find it really funny you went through the motions of making an account just to point this out. Fantastic point. Most of the people ITT probably are in the top 5% of scorers too, haha.

I hope I don't get banned on only my 3rd post (not really sure of all the groundrules), but we are talking about the 2nd LR, correct?

Knockglock wrote:Let me explain. I took 55 prep tests. Every PT I could get my hand on from 7-59, plus SuperPrep A,B,C, and June '07. I had a 4 in a row of a letter exactly TWICE.

Now that is why.

By most common thought, you should have expected it haha. It was basically overdue.

Knockglock wrote:Let me explain. I took 55 prep tests. Every PT I could get my hand on from 7-59, plus SuperPrep A,B,C, and June '07. I had a 4 in a row of a letter exactly TWICE. One of those times the pattern was correct, the other time it wasn't correct. Only one time out of 55 PT's did I get a 4 in a row and it was correct. So when I saw a 4 in a row on test day, how the fuck did you think I felt?

Now that is why.

Here's some info on 4-in-a-rows. It's happened more than once over the course of the exams you described, but still less often than it *should* have, statistically speaking.

Hahaha LSAT Blog, "Cases where girls named Becca are likely to freak out" was by far the highlight of my day.

LSAT Blog wrote:

Knockglock wrote:Let me explain. I took 55 prep tests. Every PT I could get my hand on from 7-59, plus SuperPrep A,B,C, and June '07. I had a 4 in a row of a letter exactly TWICE. One of those times the pattern was correct, the other time it wasn't correct. Only one time out of 55 PT's did I get a 4 in a row and it was correct. So when I saw a 4 in a row on test day, how the fuck did you think I felt?

Now that is why.

Here's some info on 4-in-a-rows. It's happened more than once over the course of the exams you described, but still less often than it *should* have, statistically speaking.

Lol, well guess I underestimated it. I must've missed a few of them. Still it was extremely rare when I was pt'ing, and so when I ran into it on test day it definitely gave me pause.

sundance95 wrote:How can otherwise intelligent and logical people be so convinced that scantron answer patterns offer some insight into whether one did well or not?

It's simple. LSAC deliberately avoids certain patterns because the patterns throw off students and make questions in the patterns statistically unreliable. The problem has a feedback cycle, because test-takers know that LSAC avoids odd patters (not as much as the SAT or the ACT, but LSAC does to some extent). Four or five in a row should happen more often than they do if answers are truly random; same with cascades. Similarly, there has never been, nor ever will be, a section with no answers of a certain letter, though this should happen from time to time (especially with game sections containing only 22 questions).

Add another to the "freaked out" pile when I saw what I wrote down for the LR section in question. I had a four-er with a three-er coming close after... With only a small number of an 'early' letter... But generally it seemed to favour the latter half of the columns...

sumus romani wrote:

sundance95 wrote:How can otherwise intelligent and logical people be so convinced that scantron answer patterns offer some insight into whether one did well or not?

It's simple. LSAC deliberately avoids certain patterns because the patterns throw off students and make questions in the patterns statistically unreliable.

+1

I was going to look at cascades, but I got sick of going through all the answer keys over and over.

I wouldn't be surprised if cascades (and reverse cascades) appear less often than they should.