WAS THE FIRST LG IN/OUT??? Forum

[kkklick]

I'm confused, was the first game with the 2 cars an in/out game? I might have screwed up not using all 6 entities in my diagrams

[kkklick]

Im not cancelling by the way even if i screwed up, still did good on everything else, just want to know what the classification was so i can judge on my own

[WonkyPanda]

God, you're ass better not get me banned for this. Maybe if i make it cryptic? Ah, what the hell. It's like if you and your buddies all wanted to take a couple of cars to the Hannah Montana concert. Would you really leave any of your friends behind?

[JoeShmoe11]

I'm confused, was the first game with the 2 cars an in/out game? I might have screwed up not using all 6 entities in my diagrams

WOOOA supposed to be a PM. Not that it was anything bad... >.>

[WonkyPanda]

Joe, that's a little too detailed. Edit that before the banhammer gets you.

[kkklick]

.

[wma1998]

I had two LG sections: LR-LG-RC-LR-LG. The 1st LG has the car/driver in-out game, the 2nd LG has conditional sequencing game and a track meet game, are you talking the in-out game in about the 1st LG or 2nd LG?

[kkklick]

I had two LG sections: LR-LG-RC-LR-LG. The 1st LG has the car/driver in-out game, the 2nd LG has conditional sequencing game and a track meet game, are you talking the in-out game in about the 1st LG or 2nd LG?

the first LG, im pretty sure i got the first 2 right, but i remember having trouble with the other 3, the "at least" messed with me because i figured at least 2 in each so you could have 4 total, I did my diagrams like that which was a mistake I know I'll get burned on that prob got all 3 wrong, hope I get lucky and get at least 1

[kkklick]

I think because I read it as Each car must have at least 2, confusing language again on the LSAT

[JoeShmoe11]

Joe, that's a little too detailed. Edit that before the banhammer gets you.

Holy poop that was almost bad. Thanks for the warning.

[pseudonym1]

hmmm... I do recall there being a minimum requirement in each entity. Am I wrong?

[wma1998]

Which LG do you guys think is experimental? The first LG with car/driver or the second LG with track meet?

[kkklick]

the car/driver is real, but that LG section also had a track meet game, I think you got confused

[pseudonym1]

I honestly don't remember which LG section had which games. Ironically enough, I don't remember a single game from the first section. There seems to be a general consensus among test takers that the first LG section was experimental. I wish it was real. Still, I know the odds of that are about the same as Jesus rising from the dead.... (that's a thinker).

[JurisDoctorate]

Okay, I think I remember the game that tripped me up.

Was there a game with 3 rules, the third of which being the contrapositive of the second?

[pseudonym1]

that seems to be exactly correct. I fell for the same one, froze up after hearing the girl next to me tapping her sandals feverously, and moved onto the last game. I remember finishing the last game, but unsure how well I did with it all. I went back to the 3rd game but only had around a minute and was overwhelmed.

[Ragged]

I think because I read it as Each car must have at least 2, confusing language again on the LSAT

^ That was the correct way to interpret it. HOH.

The game was not in/out. It was distribution.

[JurisDoctorate]

Phew! I have been rattling my brain over that one. It was this game that I chose as my first, my easiest. It took me 10 minutes and completely took the wind out of my sails. I crushed the next two and my last one (which I think was two and the difficult one everyone else is talking about) was your standard challenging game but I was too psyched out by the first to perform well on the last.

Oh well, I'm calling a -15. But that doesn't mean it isn't back to testing tomorrow!

[kkklick]

I think because I read it as Each car must have at least 2, confusing language again on the LSAT

^ That was the correct way to interpret it. HOH.

The game was not in/out. It was distribution.

Yea I screwed myself. Likely got 3, 4, and 5 wrong. Hopefully one of those I got a lucky guess but unlikely. Oh well 160 or lower is a rewrite anything higher I'm saying goodbye to the LSAT forever even though I wouldnt be happy with a 161 for example, this test has just caused me too much stress since April when I started studying for June. Couldn't take another round of it.

[JurisDoctorate]

Edited.

[kkklick]

Wait, it just came back to me. There was a problem with one of the driving game questions. In the middle of the section, it was one about a something being with two somethings one and the one other something having do something. They definitely goofed on the wording, I could tell instantly. I'm betting that gets thrown out.

..

[romothesavior]

You are all treading on thin ice. Watch out for the banhammer.

[JurisDoctorate]

Could you edit my quote to reflect my edit?