Top Law Schools

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

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

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?

kkklick wrote: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... >.>

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

.

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?

wma1998 wrote: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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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).

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?

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.

kkklick wrote: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.

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!

Ragged wrote:

kkklick wrote: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.

Edited.

JurisDoctorate wrote: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.

..

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

Could you edit my quote to reflect my edit?