What's the deal with the random sadistic sections Forum
- Anaconda
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm
What's the deal with the random sadistic sections
Looking at the Kaplan Q ratings, here are some sections that appear to be insane based on the question ratings:
LG on PT 41 - 1st game is easy but on the next 3 games: 11 4 star questions and 5 3 star questions.
LR Section 3 PT 43 - Questions 17-25 are all 4 stars.
LR Section 1 on PT 50 - 18/25 questions are 4 or 3 star difficulty and 7 out of the first 11 questions are 4 stars
Whats the deal with these? Why are some random sections so difficult? The thought of the LR section on PT 50 consisting of almost nothing but difficult questions makes me want to vomit.
LG on PT 41 - 1st game is easy but on the next 3 games: 11 4 star questions and 5 3 star questions.
LR Section 3 PT 43 - Questions 17-25 are all 4 stars.
LR Section 1 on PT 50 - 18/25 questions are 4 or 3 star difficulty and 7 out of the first 11 questions are 4 stars
Whats the deal with these? Why are some random sections so difficult? The thought of the LR section on PT 50 consisting of almost nothing but difficult questions makes me want to vomit.
- Anaconda
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm
Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections
Also for comparison to put this in perspective:
On SuperPrep A - there are 3 4 star questions TOTAL out of the 2 LR sections, including one section that didn't even have a 4 star question. Hmmm... I don't really like how the test seemingly has wide fluctuations in difficulty.
On SuperPrep A - there are 3 4 star questions TOTAL out of the 2 LR sections, including one section that didn't even have a 4 star question. Hmmm... I don't really like how the test seemingly has wide fluctuations in difficulty.
- DrackedaryMaster
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 5:11 pm
Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections
PT 50, that was Sep 2006, right? Oh how I remember that well. I had finished the GMAT with a high verbal and thought the LSAT "reasoning" and RC sections would be comparable (lol). That RC section alone is probably the worst I've ever done on an RC section...ever, courtesy to the insane 4th science passage. The LR sections were a disaster. It has been years since I've looked at that mess. I'm planning to attack it around the early part of September.
But yeah, I share your amazement with the wild difficulty swings. Especially if I remember, that test had only a -10 curve, even with all of the 4 stars.
But yeah, I share your amazement with the wild difficulty swings. Especially if I remember, that test had only a -10 curve, even with all of the 4 stars.
-
- Posts: 1879
- Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm
Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections
Overall tests are equated, not the specific sections. LSAC likes to make one section especially hard. See: June '10 LG, PT 59 RC.
- Anaconda
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm
Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections
Yeah, 10 point curve. What the HELL? It's not fair to give test-takers such a ridiculous section with that many hard questions, but I'm guessing people beat the adversity since the curve was so small?
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Anaconda
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm
Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections
You're severely mistaken.d34dluk3 wrote:Overall tests are equated, not the specific sections. LSAC likes to make one section especially hard. See: June '10 LG, PT 59 RC.
Comparisons:
PT 14: 40 1 Star, 34 2 Star, 13 3 Star 14 4 Star = 74 "easy" questions
PT 41: 30 1 star, 30 2 Star, 20 3 Star, 22 4 Star = 60 "easy" questions
PT 50: 26 1 Star, 26 2 Star, 23 3 Star, 23 4 Star = 52 "easy"questions
Both curves for these tests were -10
Last edited by Anaconda on Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Always Credited
- Posts: 2501
- Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:31 pm
Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections
You're comparing tests from different decades.Anaconda wrote:You're severely mistaken.d34dluk3 wrote:Overall tests are equated, not the specific sections. LSAC likes to make one section especially hard. See: June '10 LG, PT 59 RC.
Comparisons:
PT 14: 40 1 Star, 34 2 Star, 13 3 Star 14 4 Star
PT 50: 26 1 Star, 26 2 Star, 23 3 Star, 23 4 Star
Both curves for these tests were -10
-
- Posts: 773
- Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 2:17 am
Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections
d34dluk3 wrote:Overall tests are equated, not the specific sections. LSAC likes to make one section especially hard. See: June '10 LG, PT 59 RC.
I actually thought June 10' lg was relatively easy with the exception of the intern game. That intern game was a hard one though.
-
- Posts: 1879
- Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm
Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections
The -12 curve with medium LR and fluff RC says everything about that test.dabbadon8 wrote:d34dluk3 wrote:Overall tests are equated, not the specific sections. LSAC likes to make one section especially hard. See: June '10 LG, PT 59 RC.
I actually thought June 10' lg was relatively easy with the exception of the intern game. That intern game was a hard one though.
Interns was one of the hardest games I've seen, mulch threw people as well.
- Anaconda
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm
Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections
Added PT 41.Always Credited wrote:You're comparing tests from different decades.Anaconda wrote:You're severely mistaken.d34dluk3 wrote:Overall tests are equated, not the specific sections. LSAC likes to make one section especially hard. See: June '10 LG, PT 59 RC.
Comparisons:
PT 14: 40 1 Star, 34 2 Star, 13 3 Star 14 4 Star
PT 50: 26 1 Star, 26 2 Star, 23 3 Star, 23 4 Star
Both curves for these tests were -10
-
- Posts: 773
- Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 2:17 am
Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections
I don't know about that, one of the LR sections was pretty tough, the one with the underground rock band q, and the reading comp was long if not particularly tough.d34dluk3 wrote:The -12 curve with medium LR and fluff RC says everything about that test.dabbadon8 wrote:d34dluk3 wrote:Overall tests are equated, not the specific sections. LSAC likes to make one section especially hard. See: June '10 LG, PT 59 RC.
I actually thought June 10' lg was relatively easy with the exception of the intern game. That intern game was a hard one though.
Interns was one of the hardest games I've seen, mulch threw people as well.
I thought the mulch games was possibly the easiest game I have seen but I could see how it could throw people off if they over thought it.
Curve was very generous though.
- kazu
- Posts: 1600
- Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:35 pm
Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections
I really think the bolded is true though.d34dluk3 wrote:Overall tests are equated, not the specific sections. LSAC likes to make one section especially hard. See: June '10 LG, PT 59 RC.
Besides, maybe Kaplan's rating system doesn't necessarily equal LSAC's internal system. Does Kaplan have info regarding the percentage of people who got individual Qs right - info that LSAC would obviously have?
- Anaconda
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm
Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections
WELL... I just couldn't resist looking over a few of the 4 stars on PT 50, and I must say not all 4 stars are created equal. Some of the 4 stars on PT 50 are easier than some of the 2 stars on earlier PTs, and that's coming from someone that sucks at LR!!!
Actually, I'll go ahead and say the first five 4 star questions on PT 50 were EASY compared to any other 4 stars I've ever seen on Pt 1-38. I got them all right without breaking a sweat. Hope this is a trend and not an anomaly, because LR on the earlier PTs really trip me up with the nit-picky details and tough language.
Actually, I'll go ahead and say the first five 4 star questions on PT 50 were EASY compared to any other 4 stars I've ever seen on Pt 1-38. I got them all right without breaking a sweat. Hope this is a trend and not an anomaly, because LR on the earlier PTs really trip me up with the nit-picky details and tough language.

Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Anaconda
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:51 pm
Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections
kazu wrote:I really think the bolded is true though.d34dluk3 wrote:Overall tests are equated, not the specific sections. LSAC likes to make one section especially hard. See: June '10 LG, PT 59 RC.
Besides, maybe Kaplan's rating system doesn't necessarily equal LSAC's internal system. Does Kaplan have info regarding the percentage of people who got individual Qs right - info that LSAC would obviously have?
I think you're absolutely right - as I wrote by my previous post. Seriously, the right answers based on the small sample I took weren't even debatable, I would consider them gimmes.
However, I'm sure Kaplan does have the right vs wrong stats, powerscore certainly has them. It's really weird though, maybe Kaplan's rating system is just off. It does seem bizarre that this particular LR section on 50 would be considered so hard, I'm sure it would HAVE to affect the curve, since that would be tantamount to kids missing at least 4 or 5 more questions they'd usually have. There also hasn't been that much change between raw scores -> lsat scores over the past 2 decades so the questions couldn't really be that much harder.
-
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 6:59 pm
Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections
June '10:
"fluff" RC = - 7
"hard" LG = -1 (on game #1; aka not the mulch or interns)
Everything is relative...
"fluff" RC = - 7
"hard" LG = -1 (on game #1; aka not the mulch or interns)
Everything is relative...
-
- Posts: 773
- Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 2:17 am
Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections
I had a similar experiencerklafehn wrote:June '10:
"fluff" RC = - 7
"hard" LG = -1 (on game #1; aka not the mulch or interns)
Everything is relative...
RC=-4
LG=-1 on interns
-
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:21 pm
Re: What's the deal with the random sadistic sections
dabbadon8 wrote:I had a similar experiencerklafehn wrote:June '10:
"fluff" RC = - 7
"hard" LG = -1 (on game #1; aka not the mulch or interns)
Everything is relative...
RC=-4
LG=-1 on interns
Ya PT50 is difficult. Hell..
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login