OCT 2011 Experimental Section Forum

[bbalcrzy23]

LG LR LG RC LR

The 2nd LG section was crazy difficult, NO DISCUSSING SPECIFICS OF THE QUESTIONS. 24 HOURS.

for RC I had mexican proverbs and dostoevsky, and for LR I had evolutionary psychology. Hope this helps.

Thanks for everyone's help, I was going to cancel my score bc I at first I could not decide which LG was exp, but now I am 95% sure it was section3, which is as sure as I can get on LSAT stuff anyway.

Good luck to the rest of you on determining the other exp sections.

I had LG LR LG RC LR as well.

Second LG (3rd section) was very very confusing. I generally get perfect accuracy on LG, but can never finish 2-5 questions in time. I actually thought the first LG was very easy for me, which made me pretty confident until I hit the 3rd section. Luckily I found out after the exam that the 3rd section was the experimental. The first game of the experimental left barely any white space to diagram.

[3FLryan]

However, I have yet to see any of the LG/RC testers confirm that their exp. was before the scored section

Data point: My experimental RC was section 3 and my scored RC was section 4.

[neuroticjew]

Since people seem to be divided over whether LR experimental was section 3 or section 4 for those of us with LR-LG-LR-LR-RC...does anyone know the last time an experimental section came after the 15-minute break? I heard it was the 1980s.

[kaiser]

Since people seem to be divided over whether LR experimental was section 3 or section 4 for those of us with LR-LG-LR-LR-RC...does anyone know the last time an experimental section came after the 15-minute break? I heard it was the 1980s.

Experimental is NEVER section 4, and the only reason people are saying that is because they want to flame the forums with a hoax. If you have LR LG LR LR RC, then experimental was section 1 or 3, though there is no definitive way to know which of those two sections was experimental unless you discuss the questions.

[qbt1990]

Since people seem to be divided over whether LR experimental was section 3 or section 4 for those of us with LR-LG-LR-LR-RC...does anyone know the last time an experimental section came after the 15-minute break? I heard it was the 1980s.

Experimental is NEVER section 4, and the only reason people are saying that is because they want to flame the forums with a hoax. If you have LR LG LR LR RC, then experimental was section 1 or 3, though there is no definitive way to know which of those two sections was experimental unless you discuss the questions.

That is absolutely not true, I am not trying to start a hoax. That is RIDICULOUS. There are a lot of us who had questions on our 3rd section of LR (4th section overall) that NO ONE ELSE remembers having. I have talked to a handful of people who only had 2 LR sections and none of them remember topics that I'm sure I had on my 4th section. So stop saying we're just making stuff up, because something isn't adding up right now and it's completely possible the experimental is fourth.

[rosenbiems]

QBT, just to clarify, you were 25-26-25, correct?

[akhan4489]

I have a hard time believing that the LSAC test writers did something (like put the EXP in section 4) for the 1st time EVER when I sat down to finally take this exam. I have an even harder time believe that everyone who took the exam this past Saturday remembers it in so much detail that I will actually believe that this historic change happened this past weekend. Remember, these "sources" who had 3 LR sections, saw around 76 LR stimuli, questions stems, and answer choices...that's a mind rape itself. I know I couldn't remember shit when I first got out, and even as things came back, I only remembered my one games section after a lengthy discussion with my gf (I remember the games almost perfectly btw just in case ...) and I remembered a few RC. And normally after PTs I would remember just about everything. I've only heard of 1 person having the EXP RC for section 4 and for some weird reason I have a feeling I shouldn't believe it. Esp because this QBT fool above seems so determined to convince us all that section 4 could have been EXP and his "proof" are his discussions that he has had with his "sources." ...dumb. I think mods should ban him for being a bitch...

[qbt1990]

I have a hard time believing that the LSAC test writers did something (like put the EXP in section 4) for the 1st time EVER when I sat down to finally take this exam. I have an even harder time believe that everyone who took the exam this past Saturday remembers it in so much detail that I will actually believe that this historic change happened this past weekend. Remember, these "sources" who had 3 LR sections, saw around 76 LR stimuli, questions stems, and answer choices...that's a mind rape itself. I know I couldn't remember shit when I first got out, and even as things came back, I only remembered my one games section after a lengthy discussion with my gf (I remember the games almost perfectly btw just in case ...) and I remembered a few RC. And normally after PTs I would remember just about everything. I've only heard of 1 person having the EXP RC for section 4 and for some weird reason I have a feeling I shouldn't believe it. Esp because this QBT fool above seems so determined to convince us all that section 4 could have been EXP and his "proof" are his discussions that he has had with his "sources." ...dumb. I think mods should ban him for being a bitch...

Don't be so hostile. I'm not a guy by the way, I'm a girl. I'm not making this stuff up or lying and I SINCERELY hope you are right. I don't want the 4th section to be experimental at all. However, I have faith in my memory and my ability to memorize, it's something I'm good at. Nevertheless I truly hope there is an alternative explanation than a 4th section experimental.

I think the mods should ban you for being an asshole to a total stranger. I'm not doing anything wrong.

@rosenbiems, I unfortunately don't remember the # of questions in each section. Wasn't paying attention to that.

[tyro]

I hope the experimental LR was the third as well, but that still doesn't explain why I specifically remember the very long principle question in my 3rd section. Only explanation is if I'm not remembering things properly :/

edit - nvm

[tyro]

I would like to add that the fact that some people who only took two LR sections with 26 and 25 question sections does not indicate that the people who took three sections must have graded 25 and 26 question sections. LSAC removes questions from scoring all the time. This could reduce the number of LR questions to 50 combined, because we know the test could easily be 100 or 101 questions. No one knows anything for sure; so everyone who is worrying keep the faith and don't get discouraged.

lol they don't anticipate removing items from the exam. Are you joking?

[akhan4489]

Sorry if I was being hostile.

This is the conclusion I have come to so far, and yes, this is assuming that the 1 person who got the real (Dosto) RC section 4 was BS'ing:

Everyone had their EXP in the first three sections. If it was LG, then it was section 3. If it was LR, it was section 1 or 3. If it was RC, it was section 3. That's it, doesn't seem too complicated to me. If I am oversimplifying here, someone please let me know.

[happyshapy]

Sorry if I was being hostile.

This is the conclusion I have come to so far, and yes, this is assuming that the 1 person who got the real (Dosto) RC section 4 was BS'ing:

Everyone had their EXP in the first three sections. If it was LG, then it was section 3. If it was LR, it was section 1 or 3. If it was RC, it was section 3. That's it, doesn't seem too complicated to me. If I am oversimplifying here, someone please let me know.

It seems like there were MANY versions of people's tests who had three LRs. Some people had 25 26 25 and had the first as exp, some people had 25 26 26 and the third was exp, and there is a third, which was mine that went 25 26 25 and the fourth was exp.

I really don't know why you think we would make this up. I'm not a troll, I've been on this site for a year. I wish my fourth wasn't exp because it was beyond easy. No one with two lrs remembers questions from my fourth section. NO ONE. There a few threads about this but they've been heavily moded. If you had two lrs did you have a question about apes and their sense of self? Did you have a question about old and new types of flowers? Did you have a question about dogs and their masters? No. I had a question about video coupons in my 1st section that people with two lrs remember. I had a question about sewage and antibiotics in my 1st section that two lr people remember. Its not a question whether my third section was real or not because it has to be. It was my ONLY lr with 26 questions, and it's not possible that people with two lrs had a total of 101 questions and I only had 100.

There is added confusion because there seem to be multiple formats of the test for people with 3 lrs and some of them had their exp third.

[akhan4489]

Its not a question whether my third section was real or not because it has to be. It was my ONLY lr with 26 questions, and it's not possible that people with two lrs had a total of 101 questions and I only had 100.

There is added confusion because there seem to be multiple formats of the test for people with 3 lrs and some of them had their exp third.[/quote]

Your argument relies on several people's memories as well as your being perfect. Unrealistic at best. The only thing that is concrete and easy to remember is the number of questions. So if your saying your LR wnet: 25-26-25...then is you dont rely on memories and all that stuff, numerically, your first LR (25) could very well be EXP and your second LR(26) and third LR (25) could be scored...totaling 101. Makes perfect sense. Def more sense than one person recalling this problem with x amount of certainty and another person recalling that problem with x amount of certainty leading to the conclusion that the LSAC just did something they have never done.

Maybe I'm just biased because I want to the law school forum in LA a few weeks ago and talked to the LSAC rep who was there for nearly 45 minutes after attending his 1 hour seminar and it became clear that LSAC doesn't try to trick us in any way shape or form, they shit is already hard enough, they dont need to fuck with us.

Numerically, I have not read anything on TLS or elsewhere that would give me any reason to suspect the EXP section of being anywhere after the break. All the other stuff is word of mouth and what people think they for sure probably might have certainly remembered.

[EMZE]

Anyone been around a while that can comment on whether this discussion has previously occurred about sec. 4 being exp? I feel like this can't possibly be the first test with 2 LR before the break, and 1 after, that resulted in this much chaos. I know what I want to believe about where questions were, but i really don't know anymore. Especially being surrounded by so much debate and A type personalities.

[happyshapy]

Your argument relies on several people's memories as well as your being perfect. Unrealistic at best. The only thing that is concrete and easy to remember is the number of questions. So if your saying your LR wnet: 25-26-25...then is you dont rely on memories and all that stuff, numerically, your first LR (25) could very well be EXP and your second LR(26) and third LR (25) could be scored...totaling 101. Makes perfect sense. Def more sense than one person recalling this problem with x amount of certainty and another person recalling that problem with x amount of certainty leading to the conclusion that the LSAC just did something they have never done.

Maybe I'm just biased because I want to the law school forum in LA a few weeks ago and talked to the LSAC rep who was there for nearly 45 minutes after attending his 1 hour seminar and it became clear that LSAC doesn't try to trick us in any way shape or form, they shit is already hard enough, they dont need to fuck with us.

Numerically, I have not read anything on TLS or elsewhere that would give me any reason to suspect the EXP section of being anywhere after the break. All the other stuff is word of mouth and what people think they for sure probably might have certainly remembered.

I mean has there ever been this much confusion about the experimental section after a test? I really don't think so. I'm not saying that I'm 100% certain that my fourth wasn't real, I'm just saying that it's possible and probable and you should stop saying that people who believe so are trolls, trying to flame, or are stupid. It's completely possible that LSAC decided to change things up. They've done it before. Yes they don't try to trick you with the questions, but they have NEVER said where they put the experimental section, EVER. In fact most prep companies say this right before they tell you it will be in the first three. They do tell you they say it because that's what's always been done, but there is the caution that LSAC has never stated this as policy.

All I'm saying is that on the two or three other threads about this, many people with the same format as mine have talked about the questions in our section four and there have been many responses (not just one or two) from people with two lrs saying that they did not have those questions.

[neeko]

Your argument relies on several people's memories as well as your being perfect. Unrealistic at best. The only thing that is concrete and easy to remember is the number of questions. So if your saying your LR wnet: 25-26-25...then is you dont rely on memories and all that stuff, numerically, your first LR (25) could very well be EXP and your second LR(26) and third LR (25) could be scored...totaling 101. Makes perfect sense. Def more sense than one person recalling this problem with x amount of certainty and another person recalling that problem with x amount of certainty leading to the conclusion that the LSAC just did something they have never done.

Maybe I'm just biased because I want to the law school forum in LA a few weeks ago and talked to the LSAC rep who was there for nearly 45 minutes after attending his 1 hour seminar and it became clear that LSAC doesn't try to trick us in any way shape or form, they shit is already hard enough, they dont need to fuck with us.

Numerically, I have not read anything on TLS or elsewhere that would give me any reason to suspect the EXP section of being anywhere after the break. All the other stuff is word of mouth and what people think they for sure probably might have certainly remembered.

I mean has there ever been this much confusion about the experimental section after a test? I really don't think so. I'm not saying that I'm 100% certain that my fourth wasn't real, I'm just saying that it's possible and probable and you should stop saying that people who believe so are trolls, trying to flame, or are stupid. It's completely possible that LSAC decided to change things up. They've done it before. Yes they don't try to trick you with the questions, but they have NEVER said where they put the experimental section, EVER. In fact most prep companies say this right before they tell you it will be in the first three. They do tell you they say it because that's what's always been done, but there is the caution that LSAC has never stated this as policy.

All I'm saying is that on the two or three other threads about this, many people with the same format as mine have talked about the questions in our section four and there have been many responses (not just one or two) from people with two lrs saying that they did not have those questions.

I agree with you. I took the June test, and we talked about experimentals for about an hour after the test and they were never brought up again. Something is different about this one.

[akhan4489]

[mod housekeeping - cleaning up duplicate posts]

[akhan4489]

[mod housekeeping]

[akhan4489]

Your argument relies on several people's memories as well as your being perfect. Unrealistic at best. The only thing that is concrete and easy to remember is the number of questions. So if your saying your LR wnet: 25-26-25...then is you dont rely on memories and all that stuff, numerically, your first LR (25) could very well be EXP and your second LR(26) and third LR (25) could be scored...totaling 101. Makes perfect sense. Def more sense than one person recalling this problem with x amount of certainty and another person recalling that problem with x amount of certainty leading to the conclusion that the LSAC just did something they have never done.

Maybe I'm just biased because I want to the law school forum in LA a few weeks ago and talked to the LSAC rep who was there for nearly 45 minutes after attending his 1 hour seminar and it became clear that LSAC doesn't try to trick us in any way shape or form, they shit is already hard enough, they dont need to fuck with us.

Numerically, I have not read anything on TLS or elsewhere that would give me any reason to suspect the EXP section of being anywhere after the break. All the other stuff is word of mouth and what people think they for sure probably might have certainly remembered.

I mean has there ever been this much confusion about the experimental section after a test? I really don't think so. I'm not saying that I'm 100% certain that my fourth wasn't real, I'm just saying that it's possible and probable and you should stop saying that people who believe so are trolls, trying to flame, or are stupid. It's completely possible that LSAC decided to change things up. They've done it before. Yes they don't try to trick you with the questions, but they have NEVER said where they put the experimental section, EVER. In fact most prep companies say this right before they tell you it will be in the first three. They do tell you they say it because that's what's always been done, but there is the caution that LSAC has never stated this as policy.

All I'm saying is that on the two or three other threads about this, many people with the same format as mine have talked about the questions in our section four and there have been many responses (not just one or two) from people with two lrs saying that they did not have those questions.

I agree with you. I took the June test, and we talked about experimentals for about an hour after the test and they were never brought up again. Something is different about this one.

If this is all accurate then yeah, maybe this was the first time LSAC did this.
I never said it was impossible. I did say that it was easier for me to believe that people can be mistaken after a test like that LSAT than to believe that this was a historical sitting.

In either case, good luck to all.

Oh and if you would like to talk about the games section, I have a nearly photographic memory when it comes to those things, the stimuli and rules anyways, need some help with question evaluation myself, PM me!

[nygrrrl]

Hey, Akhan - just FYI? Take a close look at the first paragraph, would you? I've bolded it, for you.
See you in a day.

Just an FYI for everyone else: tomorrow will mark 3 days since the test. By now, the rules on these discussions are pretty clear. Bans (from me, anyway) will go from 24 hours to 3 days. Thank you.

This is a warning. This is likely your only warning; you are unlikely to receive any further warnings.

Please be advised that discussion or solicitation (including, but not limited to, PMs and online chatrooms) of any questions or answers from the October 2011 LSAT with anything more than an extremely broad level of specificity will result in a temporary or permanent ban. This may include a permanent ban on your IPs if necessary, which will block you from even viewing the TLS forums. Permanent IP address bans for LSAT discussion have been issued in the past.

Examples have been included for your reference below. This is not an exhaustive list. It is not a defense to say that your overly-specific discussion of an LSAT question did not exactly mirror one of the examples - you will still be banned. Linking to other online materials/discussion of the LSAT questions is also prohibited.

Please note that you agreed not to discuss specific October 2011 LSAT questions and answers when you completed your signing statement when taking the test. The LSAC considers it a violation to discuss specific October 2011 LSAT questions and answers; the LSAC will act accordingly upon discovering discussion of specific October 2011 LSAT questions and answers. Be advised that the LSAC and its agents monitor this board.

1. Games were hard. Okay.
2. Yeah, on the second question for the second game, I wasn't sure if C was just on Tuesdays or Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Ban.
3. No, the order is ACDBBE. Ban.
4. What about Question Four? If C can't go on Tuesdays, then it has to be Wednesday right? Ban.
5. You guys are stupid. The answer to Question Four and Five is D. Ban.
6. No, the answers are CDAABE. Ban.
7. C'mon guys. How can you not know all of the answers? Ban.

1. I thought the LR sections weren't too difficult. Okay.
2. What answers did you all get for the coffee growers question? Ban.
3. I got A. Ban.
4. That's weird, I thought it was either B or D. Ban.
5. But it was a parallel reasoning problem. Ban.
6. Damn it, I knew I should have picked B. Ban.
7. Hold on guys, I think the mods might get upset if we keep this up. Never a good sign.
8. Let's trick them by disguising what we're saying. So, hypothetically, if I were a coffee grower..... Ban.
9. You would be displeased with government regulation of pesticides. Ban.
10. But not price controls. Ban.
11. Is that because, hypothetically, price controls would raise prices and revenue? Ban.
12. It's just a cost problem in general. If you were a coffee grower, the legal pesticides would, hypothetically, cost more. Ban.
13. Whoa, it's just like Question 13 from the second LR section in PT 39. Ban.
14. Guys, maybe we should create a chatroom to discuss this. I started one: tinychat.com/letscheatontheLSAT Ban.
15. If you guys could PM me about this, that'd be great. Ban.

Please note that this warning applies to the Reading Comprehension section as well as the writing sample.

If you are in doubt as to whether your drafted post will run afoul of this warning, do not submit the post. You have been warned.

[3v3ryth1ng]

Anyone been around a while that can comment on whether this discussion has previously occurred about sec. 4 being exp? I feel like this can't possibly be the first test with 2 LR before the break, and 1 after, that resulted in this much chaos. I know what I want to believe about where questions were, but i really don't know anymore. Especially being surrounded by so much debate and A type personalities.

Hi. Yes, I've been following this topic since the day of the test. It interests me in particular because I feel I did dramatically worse on what may have been the experimental section.

I have talked with plenty of people on here. It's hard to say with certainty, based on the LR topics, whether there was a 4th section LR. However, many people have indicated that their 4th section RC was experimental, which can be determined conclusively based on the 4 topics it contained which no one else had.

On a side note, there are many jerks on this site quick to call it a troll job. What I can't understand is why someone who just took a logic test would seriously rule out this possibility because it's never been the case in the past. Didn't they study their flaw questions? There's no reason why it couldn't happen, and it looks like it did.

[EMZE]

I probably should have been more specific. I meant around longer than just this past test, and for that matter, longer than last June, as I took that test as well.

If this were a discussion that happens every so often, I would be inclined to imagine it a consequence of fading memories. Though if it were unique to this test, to me that does seem to make the sec. 4 thing more likely. Not that I am sold on that either, but I guarantee I have read every post on it, as I too have a vested interest in the experimental not being sec. 4.

What is kind of compelling evidence to me, as a 25 26 25 version tester, is that those with only 2 sections, regardless of their recollection of specific questions, felt that one section seemed above avg, and the other below. For me, my first was difficult, and the other 2 much more manageable. I'd love to think my first section was experimental, as I believe that would probably swing my score 3+ points in the right direction.

I don't believe clarity is forthcoming until I get that much anticipated e-mail that never opens fast enough. I am ready to call LSAC. Does anybody have an 'in' with like a mailroom clerk or orderly that works there, a janitor?

[qbt1990]

I probably should have been more specific. I meant around longer than just this past test, and for that matter, longer than last June, as I took that test as well.

If this were a discussion that happens every so often, I would be inclined to imagine it a consequence of fading memories. Though if it were unique to this test, to me that does seem to make the sec. 4 thing more likely. Not that I am sold on that either, but I guarantee I have read every post on it, as I too have a vested interest in the experimental not being sec. 4.

What is kind of compelling evidence to me, as a 25 26 25 version tester, is that those with only 2 sections, regardless of their recollection of specific questions, felt that one section seemed above avg, and the other below. For me, my first was difficult, and the other 2 much more manageable. I'd love to think my first section was experimental, as I believe that would probably swing my score 3+ points in the right direction.

I don't believe clarity is forthcoming until I get that much anticipated e-mail that never opens fast enough. I am ready to call LSAC. Does anybody have an 'in' with like a mailroom clerk or orderly that works there, a janitor?

Agree with you, the people who had 2 LR sections say that one was above average difficulty and the other was easy. Mine were:
LR 1: very easy LR 3: very difficult LR 4: very average/moderate. Which is why I'm inclined to think my 4th was experimental. This is going to be a long three weeks.

[3v3ryth1ng]

I probably should have been more specific. I meant around longer than just this past test, and for that matter, longer than last June, as I took that test as well.

If this were a discussion that happens every so often, I would be inclined to imagine it a consequence of fading memories. Though if it were unique to this test, to me that does seem to make the sec. 4 thing more likely. Not that I am sold on that either, but I guarantee I have read every post on it, as I too have a vested interest in the experimental not being sec. 4.

What is kind of compelling evidence to me, as a 25 26 25 version tester, is that those with only 2 sections, regardless of their recollection of specific questions, felt that one section seemed above avg, and the other below. For me, my first was difficult, and the other 2 much more manageable. I'd love to think my first section was experimental, as I believe that would probably swing my score 3+ points in the right direction.

I don't believe clarity is forthcoming until I get that much anticipated e-mail that never opens fast enough. I am ready to call LSAC. Does anybody have an 'in' with like a mailroom clerk or orderly that works there, a janitor?

Gotcha. Sorry, I think I misread your earlier post. I did check around, and this not a frequently recurring "conspiracy." In fact, since the LSAT has never had the experimental later than section 3, most people just take it as an indisputable fact that it must be in sections 1-3.

In your situation (25-26-25), if I remember correctly, the 4th section was the experimental. I say this because there appear to be 2 recurring layouts with 3 LR sections: 25-26-26, and 25-26-25. I had the former of the two. Which one of your LR's included Apes/mirrors? I'm 99% sure that was an experimental section.

[EMZE]

See, that's just it. I didn't have apes and mirrors. I had aggressive breast feeding macaques. There seem to have been 2 experimentals, which makes sense since they test experimentals for future tests, and obviously would need 2xLR validated before administration.

And I feel pretty sure that was not my sec. 4, in fact I thought that was my sec. 3 or 1. But I don't know quite what's what anymore.