Experimental sections Q's Forum

[paulshortys10]

1. If you had to pick the sections you wanted as an experimental, which would it be?

2.Can the experimental be the first section you take?

[minnbills]

It can be any section, but usually falls from 1-3.

I would rather have LG, because there is less reading.

[SupraVln180]

It can be any section, but usually falls from 1-3.

I would rather have LG, because there is less reading.

This.

[paulshortys10]

Is there percentages anywhere that says where it is? Any other clues to decipher which is the experimental?

[The Gentleman]

Any other clues to decipher which is the experimental?

Don't try to guess which section is experimental. It's a bad idea. October's test had a really goofy LR section that I was sure was experimental. Not that I blew it off or anything, but I definitely let my guard down a bit. Turned out it was real. Missed 5 on that LR and 1 on the other.

Just wait until after the test. People on TLS will lose their effing marbles trying to decipher between real/experimental sections.

EDIT: The experimental is always one of the first three sections.

[magicman554]

The experimental section has to be within the first three sections. LSAC makes this explicit (has to do with them not wanting test-taking fatigue to affect their data). If you see an AR or RC before and after the break, then the first one was the experimental section. Only if before the break you see one LR section, and after the break you see two LR sections will you know that the first LR was experimental.

Also, this can only be figured out in retrospect. Unless, of course, you break the rules and flip ahead to figure this out.

[The Gentleman]

The experimental section has to be within the first three sections. LSAC makes this explicit

I don't think LSAC has ever explicitly admitted this. Their canned response is something like, "the experimental section can be any one of the five sections."

But it's 99.99% certain that the experimental section will be in one of the first three sections in December.

[minnbills]

The experimental nearly always comes 1-3. But it has in the past (I think 10 years ago?) come later.

My Oct. Test was similar to the above poster's.

I had this really weird LR section that (unfortunately I almost fell asleep I was so tired) I was sure was experimental. I ended up going -8 on that one and -3 on the other LR.

Don't try and guess. Attack every section as best you can. That LR section was so odd I figured it had to be the experimental, I was wrong.

[lakers3peat]

Unless, of course, you break the rules and flip ahead to figure this out.

So if you cheat and break the rules, finding out that section 3 is games and section 4 is games, then theoretically, rather than work on section 3's logic games, you can check over your work in sections 1 and 2 then after the break, lo and behold a second games section!!!

Good thing you didn't exhaust your mental stamina on the first one!!!

Cha ching 180 here I come... Or maybe just a misconduct a shredding of my test

I make joke! I make joke!

[magicman554]

Yeah, they don't actually say it has to be in the first 3 sections (thought I read this somewhere). But every analysis done of past tests basically came to the conclusion that <99% of the time it is.

But anyway, who cares? Think of the experimental section as much needed practice, instead of an obstacle.

[magicman554]

Unless, of course, you break the rules and flip ahead to figure this out.

So if you cheat and break the rules, finding out that section 3 is games and section 4 is games, then theoretically, rather than work on section 3's logic games, you can check over your work in sections 1 and 2 then after the break, lo and behold a second games section!!!

Good thing you didn't exhaust your mental stamina on the first one!!!

Cha ching 180 here I come... Or maybe just a misconduct a shredding of my test

I make joke! I make joke!

You can't check over answers. You can't go to any section other than the one you are supposed to be working on. Seriously, don't throw your future away for some stupid "strategy" that probably won't raise your score even by one point.

[northwood]

it sucks when you have 2 of the same LG or RC in the first 3. You know what type the experimental is, but youll have a blast trying to figure out the scored and non scored ones...........
i had back to back RC in october... couldnt decide which one was which. my only saving grace was that it was section 2 and 3 ( ended up that section 2 was exp).

just go through each section assuming its graded.

[lakers3peat]

Unless, of course, you break the rules and flip ahead to figure this out.

if you cheat and break the rules, finding out that section 3 is games and section 4 is games, then theoretically, rather than work on section 3's logic games, you can check over your work in sections 1 and 2 then after the break, lo and behold a second games section!!!

Good thing you didn't exhaust your mental stamina on the first one!!!

Cha ching 180 here I come... Or maybe just a misconduct a shredding of my test

I make joke! I make joke!

You can't check over answers. You can't go to any section other than the one you are supposed to be working on. Seriously, don't throw your future away for some stupid "strategy" that probably won't raise your score even by one point.

A) I was just joking around.
B) I was curious about a hypothetical situation, not that I would ever conspire to do such a thing.

You hit the nail on the head with: don't throw your future away for some stupid "strategy" that probably won't raise your score even by one point.

Although I disagree with it being 'stupid' or it 'not raising your score by one point.'

I sometimes don't get to the last question or two of LR--depends on how many parallel the reason there might be--If I had a few extra minutes to answer these, which I normally give myself on PT(discounting the fact that I did indeed give myself a few extra minutes) I almost always get 2-3 more "right" and my score goes up by 4-5 points.

[lakers3peat]

But yes like you said, It's not worth it to risk lol. I guess my response made me sound a little

[magicman554]

Unless, of course, you break the rules and flip ahead to figure this out.

if you cheat and break the rules, finding out that section 3 is games and section 4 is games, then theoretically, rather than work on section 3's logic games, you can check over your work in sections 1 and 2 then after the break, lo and behold a second games section!!!

Good thing you didn't exhaust your mental stamina on the first one!!!

Cha ching 180 here I come... Or maybe just a misconduct a shredding of my test

I make joke! I make joke!

You can't check over answers. You can't go to any section other than the one you are supposed to be working on. Seriously, don't throw your future away for some stupid "strategy" that probably won't raise your score even by one point.

A) I was just joking around.
B) I was curious about a hypothetical situation, not that I would ever conspire to do such a thing.

You hit the nail on the head with: don't throw your future away for some stupid "strategy" that probably won't raise your score even by one point.

Although I disagree with it being 'stupid' or it 'not raising your score by one point.'

I sometimes don't get to the last question or two of LR--depends on how many parallel the reason there might be--If I had a few extra minutes to answer these, which I normally give myself on PT(discounting the fact that I did indeed give myself a few extra minutes) I almost always get 2-3 more "right" and my score goes up by 4-5 points.

It is a stupid strategy because the risk vastly outweighs the potential benefit. And hey, don't underestimate the folly of second-guessing yourself, which tends to occur more frequently (and adversely) for those who encounter serious difficulties with these sorts of questions. You could end up losing points.