Top Law Schools

I was firmly planted in the S camp and vigorously defended that answer. I stand corrected.

I still feel it should be right. horrible question

I already knew it was wrong, and admitted it weeks ago. No humility here lol.

modmx wrote:I still feel it should be right. horrible question

I agree, but as someone who was basically content with my score, I'm not sweating it that much. If instead I got, say, 169, I would be PISSED.

sgtgrumbles wrote:

modmx wrote:I still feel it should be right. horrible question

I agree, but as someone who was basically content with my score, I'm not sweating it that much. If instead I got, say, 169, I would be PISSED.

ouch...that is my situation. Def retaking.

The question left room for too much subjective reasoning. whatever though

I never understood the controversy over this question. It seemed like it had an obvious answer... What was the answer other people thought it could be?

J0EBL0W wrote:I never understood the controversy over this question. It seemed like it had an obvious answer... What was the answer other people thought it could be?

sgtgrumbles wrote:I was firmly planted in the S camp and vigorously defended that answer. I stand corrected.

S'ok.

I missed a couple people were discussing/debating but at that point I was so freaked I never joined in on any of the discussions.

I put S and still believe that it was a justified answer, but was weaker than A. They ask for the strongest answer, and I failed to acknowledge that, instead relying on quite a bit of "reaching" to make S fit.

Man enough to admit I was wrong...clearly over-thought that question. Still happy with my score - 168!

To be honest, at the time I thought it was a "gimme" question and I chose the CR immediately. But upon hearing some of the arguments for the S camp, I adamantly believe that both answers require assumptions not warranted by the stimulus and that you could reasonably argue for S.

I was S camp, too. Womp!

The controversy over this question baffled me. If a question came up that asked us to add 2+2, it would have been unusual for the LSAT, but that doesn't mean I'd forget that 2+2=4 and object that needing to know how to add requires outside knowledge.

I was firmly in the S camp, thought that I put A, actually put S, got it wrong wtf is that

I thought S was a bad answer from the start, skipped right over it, selected the CR. Never had much of an issue with the question in general, although obviously A is a pretty weak answer. For those that picked S, what was the main argument?

Now that the test has been released, you're still not allowed to talk about the questions?

I missed brickhouse and tax. Someone was saying that I also apperently missed the 4th year students, but they were dead wrong.

Where can we find the test?

Oh, you have to click things.

I got it right, but I still thought it was a weird question for the same reasons.

So I thought I put S, spent time defending S, only to find I put the correct answer. Ha! That being said, I stand by my reasons for why I thought S was right and don't blame anyone for putting it.

rinkrat19 wrote:The controversy over this question baffled me. If a question came up that asked us to add 2+2, it would have been unusual for the LSAT, but that doesn't mean I'd forget that 2+2=4 and object that needing to know how to add requires outside knowledge.

It wasn't that easy. "A" clearly would have working knowledge of one role, but would not necessarily be without a copy of the play. The argument can easily be made that A in fact WOULD have a copy.
Looking back on it, it is clear that the credited answer is stronger than "S" but it is not as clear as 2+2=4

Rather it is a case of saying 2+1.8=4 which can be reasonably claimed by those who are fine with rounding, and reasonably refuted by those who want the premises to directly and irrefutably support the conclusion.

This is why LSAC asks for the best answer, because process of elimination would lead you to the right answer here.

2014 wrote:

rinkrat19 wrote:The controversy over this question baffled me. If a question came up that asked us to add 2+2, it would have been unusual for the LSAT, but that doesn't mean I'd forget that 2+2=4 and object that needing to know how to add requires outside knowledge.

It wasn't that easy. "A" clearly would have working knowledge of one role, but would not necessarily be without a copy of the play. The argument can easily be made that A in fact WOULD have a copy.
Looking back on it, it is clear that the credited answer is stronger than "S" but it is not as clear as 2+2=4

Rather it is a case of saying 2+1.8=4 which can be reasonably claimed by those who are fine with rounding, and reasonably refuted by those who want the premises to directly and irrefutably support the conclusion.

This is why LSAC asks for the best answer, because process of elimination would lead you to the right answer here.

I read it to mean that no matter who the writer was and whether or not they might reasonably be expected to have a copy in the normal course of events, they didn't in this case. S might have been on vacation away from his own collection, reproducing the thing for a friend, I suppose, but there's no way he would only remember one part correctly.

Outside knowledge that a 17th-century A likely wouldn't have a copy is only required if you're trying to explain something that's already given, which you don't have to do because it's given.

To me, not only did 2+2= exactly 2, but all the other choices were more like =4,921,873.

See to me it was just a matter of "S" is far more unlikely to have a copy than "A" is and perhaps "S" had a particular interest in one part, i.e. say their nephew played a role and they remembered everything he did well. Someone after the test made the analogy to the movie wall street too. I can certainly remember the greed is good speech WAY better than any other line in that movie because it was the most compelling and memorable part.

However, A remembering only his lines is a much stronger point, and regardless of if he had a copy or not, one strong point is better than two that require outside knowledge or stretching in LSAT terms.