Top Law Schools

The decisive factor for the curve has always being Logic Game section.

No matter how you feel about the LR or RC, it's nothing close to the awful feeling of one unsolved LG. This is why there is much less uproar this time compared to June test. As much as I want the opposite, it wont be a very generous curve based on the current reaction to LG section.

do you have any proof of this?

beachbum wrote:do you have any proof of this?

No, just being self-righteous...

actually it's the correlation that I see based on the 64 PTs, hard games, generous curves. But of course I have made the unjustifiable correlation means causal relationship type of mistake.

Counterexample: PT 59 has above-average difficulty on games but not even close to warrant a -14 curve. LR was clearly the main curve setter in that case.

KevinP wrote:Counterexample: PT 59 has above-average difficulty on games but not even close to warrant a -14 curve. LR was clearly the main curve setter in that case.

Not to mention that awful Noguchi RC passage, yuck.

I'm going to nonoxidizing metal that guy's face.

To be fair, PT59 had the "cities" LG, which LSAT Blog found difficult enough to write a strategy specifically for... but yeah the LR+RC was much, much harder than the LG or AR on 59.

ThreeYears wrote:

beachbum wrote:do you have any proof of this?

No, just being self-righteous...

actually it's the correlation that I see based on the 64 PTs, hard games, generous curves. But of course I have made the unjustifiable correlation means causal relationship type of mistake.

I think the fact that there aren't hundreds of people whining about it on TLS right now is good proof that the LG section wasn't that hard. As for proof that it "sets" the curve, I don't have any but suspect that OP is correct.

The Feb 2009 takers who had this LG as experimental (and myself) would disagree. True, there was no super-mega king kong difficult game out of the four, but taken together, they proved pretty formidable (at least for me) and time consuming. I usually finished my games in time and always certain I had the right answers. Yesterday, I was unable to do that. True, the first two games are easy, but the amount of time I had to spend getting the right answers (21) took a lot longer than what I was used to. And then time pressure kicks in, then panic, and then mistakes start flying. I skipped between the artifact/runners game (something I do not recommend), but managed to solve half of the artifacts and all but two of the runner Qs. Game 3 pi$$ed me off because I've done enough games to recognize the rule patterns it involves and still my brain went to sleep to run away from the time fear. I usually go -0/-2 on LG, but I will be shocked if I miss -5 or less after yesterday. And I hardly think I am the only one this happened to.

I take it this whole "curve is gonna be -8/9" BS is stemming from people who want to be pleasantly surprised. My Raw Scores on my PTs were around the mid 80's for the most part. Despite answering more questions on say, PT48 and PT54, my score stayed pretty much the same. Sadly, I don't think I made it anywhere near the mid-80's on this one, probably closer to my performance on PT53(79) and PT59(82). This curve will be no lower than 89/-12 for 170. Bank on it.

To me it seems that LG will be deceptively hard to a lot of people, obviously those who are awesome at LG probably did good but I think to the VAST majority of LSAT takers, the games probably posed bigger problems than LG sections on past tests.

LR wasnt super hard but I definitely saw during the test the trap answers that I'm sure many, many people could fall for. There were some pretty tricky LRs, so I am not confident at all that I went -1/-2 on each section. Many LR sections on previous PTs I could to some degree say "this LR was pretty easy and didnt have any killer questions, so -1/-2 is very possible"

and RC. RC to me wasnt that difficult, although i've heard from many that passage 4 killed some people. I had to guess on 1 and probably got another wrong on that section.


I think putting them all together, with LGs difficulty and LR's lack of easyness with a RC passage that probably gave a lot of people trouble, -8/=9 seems very unlikely. My official guess is -11 but i wouldnt be surprised to see -12.

DrackedaryMaster wrote:The Feb 2009 takers who had this LG as experimental (and myself) would disagree. True, there was no super-mega king kong difficult game out of the four, but taken together, they proved pretty formidable (at least for me) and time consuming. I usually finished my games in time and always certain I had the right answers. Yesterday, I was unable to do that. True, the first two games are easy, but the amount of time I had to spend getting the right answers (21) took a lot longer than what I was used to. And then time pressure kicks in, then panic, and then mistakes start flying. I skipped between the artifact/runners game (something I do not recommend), but managed to solve half of the artifacts and all but two of the runner Qs. Game 3 pi$$ed me off because I've done enough games to recognize the rule patterns it involves and still my brain went to sleep to run away from the time fear. I usually go -0/-2 on LG, but I will be shocked if I miss -5 or less after yesterday. And I hardly think I am the only one this happened to.

I take it this whole "curve is gonna be -8/9" BS is stemming from people who want to be pleasantly surprised. My Raw Scores on my PTs were around the mid 80's for the most part. Despite answering more questions on say, PT48 and PT54, my score stayed pretty much the same. Sadly, I don't think I made it anywhere near the mid-80's on this one, probably closer to my performance on PT53(79) and PT59(82). This curve will be no lower than 89/-12 for 170. Bank on it.

I 100% agree. LG is usually my best section, so I was excited when I realized it was the very last part of the test for me. But for some reason, I had major problems with 2 of the games...and I could have messed up the other two as well because I was in such a panic due to lack of time. The games were definitely not easy, as a whole. I can't even begin to guess how many I got wrong/right. It's all up in the air. It was an awful way to end the test.

DrackedaryMaster wrote:The Feb 2009 takers who had this LG as experimental (and myself) would disagree. True, there was no super-mega king kong difficult game out of the four, but taken together, they proved pretty formidable (at least for me) and time consuming. I usually finished my games in time and always certain I had the right answers. Yesterday, I was unable to do that. True, the first two games are easy, but the amount of time I had to spend getting the right answers (21) took a lot longer than what I was used to. And then time pressure kicks in, then panic, and then mistakes start flying. I skipped between the artifact/runners game (something I do not recommend), but managed to solve half of the artifacts and all but two of the runner Qs. Game 3 pi$$ed me off because I've done enough games to recognize the rule patterns it involves and still my brain went to sleep to run away from the time fear. I usually go -0/-2 on LG, but I will be shocked if I miss -5 or less after yesterday. And I hardly think I am the only one this happened to.

I take it this whole "curve is gonna be -8/9" BS is stemming from people who want to be pleasantly surprised. My Raw Scores on my PTs were around the mid 80's for the most part. Despite answering more questions on say, PT48 and PT54, my score stayed pretty much the same. Sadly, I don't think I made it anywhere near the mid-80's on this one, probably closer to my performance on PT53(79) and PT59(82). This curve will be no lower than 89/-12 for 170. Bank on it.

Dude, you met this particular LG session twice?

The test is not curved, and the reaction of the minuscule proportion of October takers you have read on TLS is irrelevant.

ThreeYears wrote:

DrackedaryMaster wrote:The Feb 2009 takers who had this LG as experimental (and myself) would disagree. True, there was no super-mega king kong difficult game out of the four, but taken together, they proved pretty formidable (at least for me) and time consuming. I usually finished my games in time and always certain I had the right answers. Yesterday, I was unable to do that. True, the first two games are easy, but the amount of time I had to spend getting the right answers (21) took a lot longer than what I was used to. And then time pressure kicks in, then panic, and then mistakes start flying. I skipped between the artifact/runners game (something I do not recommend), but managed to solve half of the artifacts and all but two of the runner Qs. Game 3 pi$$ed me off because I've done enough games to recognize the rule patterns it involves and still my brain went to sleep to run away from the time fear. I usually go -0/-2 on LG, but I will be shocked if I miss -5 or less after yesterday. And I hardly think I am the only one this happened to.

I take it this whole "curve is gonna be -8/9" BS is stemming from people who want to be pleasantly surprised. My Raw Scores on my PTs were around the mid 80's for the most part. Despite answering more questions on say, PT48 and PT54, my score stayed pretty much the same. Sadly, I don't think I made it anywhere near the mid-80's on this one, probably closer to my performance on PT53(79) and PT59(82). This curve will be no lower than 89/-12 for 170. Bank on it.

Dude, you met this particular LG session twice?

No. Use the search feature. Type one of the LG Descriptions from yesterday. You will see the Feb 2009 LSAT threads pop up. This was their experiemental. And they hated it, along with their real LG.

eskimo wrote:The test is not curved, and the reaction of the minuscule proportion of October takers you have read on TLS is irrelevant.

Get out of here, eskomo. Not your show.


I think the curve will be -7.

Ragged wrote:

eskimo wrote:The test is not curved, and the reaction of the minuscule proportion of October takers you have read on TLS is irrelevant.

Get out of here, eskomo. Not your show.


I think the curve will be -7.

eskimo wrote:

Ragged wrote:

eskimo wrote:The test is not curved, and the reaction of the minuscule proportion of October takers you have read on TLS is irrelevant.

Get out of here, eskomo. Not your show.


I think the curve will be -7.

--ImageRemoved--

I have a feeling the LG will sneak up on people. It didn't seem that difficult to me... which means I failed it haha!

take a look at 55... brutal RC but relatively straight forward games. LR was so-so. and the curve there was -9. That would support the "LG determining curve theory".

LG probably contributes more to the curve than RC or LR.

ThreeYears wrote:The decisive factor for the curve has always being Logic Game section.

No matter how you feel about the LR or RC, it's nothing close to the awful feeling of one unsolved LG. This is why there is much less uproar this time compared to June test. As much as I want the opposite, it wont be a very generous curve based on the current reaction to LG section.

This is not true at all. There have been several tests where I remember the LG being pretty easy but there being a generous curve (usually do to LR more than RC). I also remember some really hard LGs but low curves due to just ridiculously easy LR sections.

If you understood how the LSAT "curve" is set, you'd understand that it relies just as much on RC and LR as it does on games.

Ragged wrote:

eskimo wrote:The test is not curved, and the reaction of the minuscule proportion of October takers you have read on TLS is irrelevant.

Get out of here, eskomo. Not your show.


I think the curve will be -7.

When was the last time there was a -7 scale?

AreJay711 wrote:

Ragged wrote:

eskimo wrote:The test is not curved, and the reaction of the minuscule proportion of October takers you have read on TLS is irrelevant.

Get out of here, eskomo. Not your show.


I think the curve will be -7.

When was the last time there was a -7 scale?

June, 2007

Nope, June 2007 was a -8 curve, I think.

The last -7 was sometime in 2005.

Not sure what determines what, but the experimental section was much harder than the last LG section in my opinion. I was pissed until the last LG section came through.

yepyep wrote:Not sure what determines what, but the experimental section was much harder than the last LG section in my opinion. I was pissed until the last LG section came through.

me too! I had LG for the second section and I just sucked at it. Ive seen other people on here say the experimental was easy, so maybe it was just nerves but I found it pretty hard. Then after the break when I saw another LG, I felt like I was given a second chance! Still ran out of time and had to randomly bubble in the last 2 :/

Just a quick quesion: magazine articles game was in experimental LG right? The real LG had, drivers, artifacts, race tracks, and nurses.