TraditionalLSATInfallibilityApologetics: lips go here 8====D Forum

[3v3ryth1ng]

I had LR (25), LG (23), LR (26), LR (26), and RC (27).

I can verify through reading these posts that one of the LR's is 25 questions, and the other is 26. That's 101 questions; no debate about that.

BUT, I keep hearing noise about a 4th section that was experimental for the first time in history. I hope this is not the case, as I did better on the 4th section than the 3rd. Those of you who are saying this, please explain how you deduced this. Certainly there's no precedent for it, but LSAC can change the rules at any time. I just want to know for certain if they did.

[qbt1990]

I had LR (25), LG (23), LR (26), LR (26), and RC (27).

I can verify through reading these posts that one of the LR's is 25 questions, and the other is 26. That's 101 questions; no debate about that.

BUT, I keep hearing noise about a 4th section that was experimental for the first time in history. I hope this is not the case, as I did better on the 4th section than the 3rd. Those of you who are saying this, please explain how you deduced this. Certainly there's no precedent for it, but LSAC can change the rules at any time. I just want to know for certain if they did.

I also hope you are right, I would love it if the 3rd section was the experimental. The reason I believe my 4th was experimental was because I memorized a couple topics from each of my LR sections (1, 3 and 4). I specifically remember which topics came from which sections. Three of my friends remembered the same topics I brought up from 1 and 3, and none of them had any recollection of the topics I memorized from section 4. Another person on here also consulted with his girlfriend and came to the same conclusion. I swear I'm not trying to freak people out, this is just what I have deduced from talking to people.

[bport hopeful]

nope, it was the third one.

[dietcoke0]

Tread lightly. Seems like possible trolls with new accounts stirring shit. Don't panic nor cancel based on what people say here.

[qbt1990]

Tread lightly. Seems like possible trolls with new accounts stirring shit. Don't panic nor cancel based on what people say here.

Have you ever considered the possibility that a lot of people haven't heard of TLS until they start the law school app process and LSAT classes? Some of us haven't had accounts for years, that does not automatically make us trolls. I am not a troll, I'm not lying, I'm freaking out about this too and I would like to figure this out just as much as anyone else.

[dietcoke0]

Tread lightly. Seems like possible trolls with new accounts stirring shit. Don't panic nor cancel based on what people say here.

Have you ever considered the possibility that a lot of people haven't heard of TLS until they start the law school app process and LSAT classes? Some of us haven't had accounts for years, that does not automatically make us trolls. I am not a troll, I'm not lying, I'm freaking out about this too and I would like to figure this out just as much as anyone else.

I've had an account for like 2 weeks, and posted 3 posts or so before today. I'm not some Vet. I also noticed people making big claims going against the grain of every LSAT before today, and am not the only one. To me, I would trust your instincts, and the majority, at least those who've posted more than just in the last few days. I also would never take advice about something based on a small sampling, a hunch, or hearsay. But hey, that's me.

[happyshapy]

-

[3v3ryth1ng]

Tread lightly. Seems like possible trolls with new accounts stirring shit. Don't panic nor cancel based on what people say here.

Definitely not about to panic or cancel, especially because I like how I did on the 25 question section. The only reason I would give this "ridiculous" notion the time of day is because LSAC does break from tradition every so often. December 2010, for example, had 102 questions with two 26-question LR sections. That had never happened before. As far as I know, there's no reason why the experimental section must appear in the first 3 sections.

It would make me feel better to know if this sort of controversy happens all the time, because if it does, then it would seem to be just par for the course LSAT conspiracy theory.

[qbt1990]

Tread lightly. Seems like possible trolls with new accounts stirring shit. Don't panic nor cancel based on what people say here.

Have you ever considered the possibility that a lot of people haven't heard of TLS until they start the law school app process and LSAT classes? Some of us haven't had accounts for years, that does not automatically make us trolls. I am not a troll, I'm not lying, I'm freaking out about this too and I would like to figure this out just as much as anyone else.

I've had an account for like 2 weeks, and posted 3 posts or so before today. I'm not some Vet. I also noticed people making big claims going against the grain of every LSAT before today, and am not the only one. To me, I would trust your instincts, and the majority, at least those who've posted more than just in the last few days. I also would never take advice about something based on a small sampling, a hunch, or hearsay. But hey, that's me.

Yeah I understand your point. But when you have talked to a handful of people you know who had 2 sections of LR, and they don't remember a good chunk of your questions that you are POSITIVE came from your 4th section, you would definitely question it too.

[dietcoke0]

I agree it's possibility, just not going to really call it until scores are disclosed.

I think it would be more haunting if it was an undisclosed test.

[dietcoke0]

Tread lightly. Seems like possible trolls with new accounts stirring shit. Don't panic nor cancel based on what people say here.

Have you ever considered the possibility that a lot of people haven't heard of TLS until they start the law school app process and LSAT classes? Some of us haven't had accounts for years, that does not automatically make us trolls. I am not a troll, I'm not lying, I'm freaking out about this too and I would like to figure this out just as much as anyone else.

I've had an account for like 2 weeks, and posted 3 posts or so before today. I'm not some Vet. I also noticed people making big claims going against the grain of every LSAT before today, and am not the only one. To me, I would trust your instincts, and the majority, at least those who've posted more than just in the last few days. I also would never take advice about something based on a small sampling, a hunch, or hearsay. But hey, that's me.

Yeah I understand your point. But when you have talked to a handful of people you know who had 2 sections of LR, and they don't remember a good chunk of your questions that you are POSITIVE came from your 4th section, you would definitely question it too.

And I would question it more if I knew them. Still going to take what I read only with a grain of salt, and a pitcher of margaritas

[3v3ryth1ng]

there are two different lay outs for 3LRs, 25-26-26 or 25-26-25, from what i've read if you had 25-26-25 the 4th section (3rd lr) was exp, if you had 25-26-26 the 3rd section, (2nd lr) was exp.

See, I hope you understand the gravity of what you're saying. If this turns out to be true, it represents a break with one of the LSAT's most faithful traditions. Even though I'm off the hook according to your information, it definitely complicates the whole process of guessing the experimental section while actually taking the test. Maybe that's why they'd do it...

For the record, I hope you're totally wrong.

[happyshapy]

See, I hope you understand the gravity of what you're saying. If this turns out to be true, it represents a break with one of the LSAT's most faithful traditions. Even though I'm off the hook according to your information, it definitely complicates the whole process of guessing the experimental section while actually taking the test. Maybe that's why they'd do it...

For the record, I hope you're totally wrong.

i would assume that's exactly why the did it. i've been obsessing over this test for the past year and half so i understand what this would mean... i would love love love love to be wrong. my fourth lr section was so easy i finished with 5 minutes left. that has never happened to me before. my 3rd lr section was so hard i wanted to cry. i also had to pee so badly i couldn't really see straight so that might have had an impact, but people with only two lr sections have talked about multiple questions that appeared in different sections that I had 1st and 3rd. There's just no way that my 4th was real.

[qbt1990]

there are two different lay outs for 3LRs, 25-26-26 or 25-26-25, from what i've read if you had 25-26-25 the 4th section (3rd lr) was exp, if you had 25-26-26 the 3rd section, (2nd lr) was exp.

See, I hope you understand the gravity of what you're saying. If this turns out to be true, it represents a break with one of the LSAT's most faithful traditions. Even though I'm off the hook according to your information, it definitely complicates the whole process of guessing the experimental section while actually taking the test. Maybe that's why they'd do it...

For the record, I hope you're totally wrong.

i would assume that's exactly why the did it. i've been obsessing over this test for the past year and half so i understand what this would mean... i would love love love love to be wrong. my fourth lr section was so easy i finished with 5 minutes left. that has never happened to me before. my 3rd lr section was so hard i wanted to cry. i also had to pee so badly i couldn't really see straight so that might have had an impact, but people with only two lr sections have talked about multiple questions that appeared in different sections that I had 1st and 3rd. There's just no way that my 4th was real.

Same boat.

[Bstbll]

Same boat.

As well.

[3v3ryth1ng]

there are two different lay outs for 3LRs, 25-26-26 or 25-26-25, from what i've read if you had 25-26-25 the 4th section (3rd lr) was exp, if you had 25-26-26 the 3rd section, (2nd lr) was exp.

See, I hope you understand the gravity of what you're saying. If this turns out to be true, it represents a break with one of the LSAT's most faithful traditions. Even though I'm off the hook according to your information, it definitely complicates the whole process of guessing the experimental section while actually taking the test. Maybe that's why they'd do it...

For the record, I hope you're totally wrong.

i would assume that's exactly why the did it. i've been obsessing over this test for the past year and half so i understand what this would mean... i would love love love love to be wrong. my fourth lr section was so easy i finished with 5 minutes left. that has never happened to me before. my 3rd lr section was so hard i wanted to cry. i also had to pee so badly i couldn't really see straight so that might have had an impact, but people with only two lr sections have talked about multiple questions that appeared in different sections that I had 1st and 3rd. There's just no way that my 4th was real.

I definitely wouldn't rely on a section being too easy as reason thinking it's experimental. A lot of times they use experimental sections as they are/were, they just generate the "curve" for future tests based on everyone's performance.

And sometimes people forget topics from specific questions. I forget almost all of the topics. I do remember that my 2nd LR had 2 REMOVED BY MODS questions near the beginning, about one question apart. I also remember that my 3rd LR section had 2 above-average difficulty questions rfor questions 1 and 2. I thought that was just me, but I've heard other people mention that too. What are some topics/characteristics from your alleged non-experimental 26-question section?

[qbt1990]

edit

[happyshapy]

-

[3v3ryth1ng]

[/quote]

The 26 question section I had, that I believe is non-experimental had the pizza parlor question and the question about law enforcement looking into peoples computers.[/quote]

Ok, I remember those questions. That was my 4th section. And you had it where...? (sorry if you already stated and I forgot)

[qbt1990]

The 26 question section I had, that I believe is non-experimental had the pizza parlor question and the question about law enforcement looking into peoples computers.[/quote]

Ok, I remember those questions. That was my 4th section. And you had it where...? (sorry if you already stated and I forgot)[/quote]

I had this section 3rd.

[3v3ryth1ng]

Well I'm now convinced that it's true- the experimental section can now appear 4th, or possibly later. Someone from another thread had a the experimental RC in his 4th section. That's pretty hard to argue with, unless of course he's lying. Thank you all, and good night.

[3v3ryth1ng]

For those of you who care, Blueprint (the renowned LSAT test prep company) is now reporting that the 4th section was an experimental, at least in some cases. Well, not really. They acknowledged that it was in an "unexpected" spot. That's a soft confirmation right there. Interestingly, they make pretty light of this historic occasion. Hell, it only got one sentence!

http://blueprintprep.com/lsatblog/lsat- ... -carnival/

But maybe I should just change the name of this thread to "Traditional LSAT Infallibility Apologetics= place your lips here."
Go ahead and start suckin.'

[qbt1990]

Wow, fuck my life

[imjustjoking22]

Go ahead and fuck my life too.

[941law]

interesting. I was hoping it was the 1st LR but in all reality I found them all to be equal. Glad I didn't assume it was 1 of the first 2 and let that creep in mentally. I went into the test thinking that the lsac would do whatever the hell they want and I was right.