Top Law Schools

.

.

You're not alone. LR LG LR LR RC. The games felt good. RC felt normal. LR2 and 3 felt awful. 1-16 or so went amazingly on both and I was ahead on time, but 17+ killed me. I kept on coming to two answers and being unable to choose. Ended up guessing on a couple on LR2 and making a few judgment calls on LR3

I hope LR 3 (section 4) was experimental.

poultry wrote:I am curious to see how you guys really feel about October's LR sections. Most of the discussion in the forum is about bombing the LG and the nasty bike game. It seems like folks feel pretty confident about LRs, which I feel especially nervous with. I had 3 sections of LR in the real test. The exp. section came after the break (4th section). My first section was a graded LR. Unfortunately I had to pee badly and I am worried that it might have affected my performance worse than I thought. Now the questions and topics from the three sections of LRs keep on popping to my head and I realized I made so far 2-3 obvious mistakes (how many errs are still lurking is unsure). This is really unsettling since LR has been my strong point and I always control mistakes within 4 for two LRs combined. Now just based on my memory I have picked up a lot of mistakes....Is it just me or the LR is tougher than usual?

I predict that I might miss 6-8 in the two LRs.

Hey, I just wanna let you know that the experimental section NEVER shows up after the break, it's always one of the first three sections. So the section you thought was experimental (4th) was actually scored. If you had two LRs before break and one LR after break, then one of the first two was experimental.

tepper wrote:

poultry wrote:I am curious to see how you guys really feel about October's LR sections. Most of the discussion in the forum is about bombing the LG and the nasty bike game. It seems like folks feel pretty confident about LRs, which I feel especially nervous with. I had 3 sections of LR in the real test. The exp. section came after the break (4th section). My first section was a graded LR. Unfortunately I had to pee badly and I am worried that it might have affected my performance worse than I thought. Now the questions and topics from the three sections of LRs keep on popping to my head and I realized I made so far 2-3 obvious mistakes (how many errs are still lurking is unsure). This is really unsettling since LR has been my strong point and I always control mistakes within 4 for two LRs combined. Now just based on my memory I have picked up a lot of mistakes....Is it just me or the LR is tougher than usual?

I predict that I might miss 6-8 in the two LRs.

Hey, I just wanna let you know that the experimental section NEVER shows up after the break, it's always one of the first three sections. So the section you thought was experimental (4th) was actually scored. If you had two LRs before break and one LR after break, then one of the first two was experimental.

Not necessarily. Blueprint seems to think that some people got a 4th section experimental for the first time...
http://blueprintprep.com/lsatblog/tag/o ... 2011-lsat/

butchcassidy wrote:
Not necessarily. Blueprint seems to think that some people got a 4th section experimental for the first time...
http://blueprintprep.com/lsatblog/tag/o ... 2011-lsat/

I can't see in that link where they claim an experimental for the 4th section, just an "unusual" spot. Is there anything more?

butchcassidy wrote:

tepper wrote:

poultry wrote:I am curious to see how you guys really feel about October's LR sections. Most of the discussion in the forum is about bombing the LG and the nasty bike game. It seems like folks feel pretty confident about LRs, which I feel especially nervous with. I had 3 sections of LR in the real test. The exp. section came after the break (4th section). My first section was a graded LR. Unfortunately I had to pee badly and I am worried that it might have affected my performance worse than I thought. Now the questions and topics from the three sections of LRs keep on popping to my head and I realized I made so far 2-3 obvious mistakes (how many errs are still lurking is unsure). This is really unsettling since LR has been my strong point and I always control mistakes within 4 for two LRs combined. Now just based on my memory I have picked up a lot of mistakes....Is it just me or the LR is tougher than usual?

I predict that I might miss 6-8 in the two LRs.

Hey, I just wanna let you know that the experimental section NEVER shows up after the break, it's always one of the first three sections. So the section you thought was experimental (4th) was actually scored. If you had two LRs before break and one LR after break, then one of the first two was experimental.

Not necessarily. Blueprint seems to think that some people got a 4th section experimental for the first time...
http://blueprintprep.com/lsatblog/tag/o ... 2011-lsat/

uh no...the article did not mention "4th section" anywhere, read your own source carefully before you make a claim.

what else could they be referring to when they say it was in an "unusual spot". There is also some anecdotal evidence (TLS threads) that for some of those with 3 LR sections both real sections did in fact come before the break.

It is officially after the cancel date, no use worrying now. I for one am all about the positive vibes at this point.

benito wrote:what else could they be referring to when they say it was in an "unusual spot". There is also some anecdotal evidence (TLS threads) that for some of those with 3 LR sections both real sections did in fact come before the break.

+1

suspicious android wrote:

butchcassidy wrote:
Not necessarily. Blueprint seems to think that some people got a 4th section experimental for the first time...
http://blueprintprep.com/lsatblog/tag/o ... 2011-lsat/

I can't see in that link where they claim an experimental for the 4th section, just an "unusual" spot. Is there anything more?

I've heard a lot of people say that it was fourth. Mine might've been, but I don't remember the questions from the first and fourth sections and obv won't try to discuss them here

tepper wrote:You guys need to keep in mind that it was all based on people's memory after they took the test, which could be extremely shaky, given the fact that they were taking the real exam. There's no evidence at all that LSAC has ever put the experimental after the break. So just because a few people who claim they remembered it was 4th doesn't mean a whole lot.

why is this bold?

Also, it's more than a few people that have noticed this. LSAC may have done this because people have caught on to the fact that it was always in the first three sections and wanted to change it up on people

JamMasterJ wrote:

tepper wrote:You guys need to keep in mind that it was all based on people's memory after they took the test, which could be extremely shaky, given the fact that they were taking the real exam. There's no evidence at all that LSAC has ever put the experimental after the break. So just because a few people who claim they remembered it was 4th doesn't mean a whole lot.

why is this bold?

Also, it's more than a few people that have noticed this. LSAC may have done this because people have caught on to the fact that it was always in the first three sections and wanted to change it up on people

bold is easier to read, doesn't need any other reason.

tepper wrote:

JamMasterJ wrote:

tepper wrote:You guys need to keep in mind that it was all based on people's memory after they took the test, which could be extremely shaky, given the fact that they were taking the real exam. There's no evidence at all that LSAC has ever put the experimental after the break. So just because a few people who claim they remembered it was 4th doesn't mean a whole lot.

why is this bold?

Also, it's more than a few people that have noticed this. LSAC may have done this because people have caught on to the fact that it was always in the first three sections and wanted to change it up on people

bold is easier to read, doesn't need any other reason.

Who says your post is worth reading?

JamMasterJ wrote:

tepper wrote:

JamMasterJ wrote:

tepper wrote:You guys need to keep in mind that it was all based on people's memory after they took the test, which could be extremely shaky, given the fact that they were taking the real exam. There's no evidence at all that LSAC has ever put the experimental after the break. So just because a few people who claim they remembered it was 4th doesn't mean a whole lot.

why is this bold?

Also, it's more than a few people that have noticed this. LSAC may have done this because people have caught on to the fact that it was always in the first three sections and wanted to change it up on people

bold is easier to read, doesn't need any other reason.

Who says your post is worth reading?

Are you in high school or something? What kind of stupid comment is that? I don't see the point of turning this into a personal attack.

Yeah, I'm not buying it, we'll know for sure after the scores are released, but people claim all sorts of crazy things after the test but before disclosure. 99% of the time, they just don't remember correctly. This is probably why the blueprint sight didn't make any specific claims, because they know it's likely bullshit.

tepper wrote:

JamMasterJ wrote:

tepper wrote:

JamMasterJ wrote:
Also, it's more than a few people that have noticed this. LSAC may have done this because people have caught on to the fact that it was always in the first three sections and wanted to change it up on people

bold is easier to read, doesn't need any other reason.

Who says your post is worth reading?

Are you in high school or something? What kind of stupid comment is that? I don't see the point of turning this into a personal attack.

didn't read, lol

#highschool

Back to the OP's question.... I had LR, LG, LR, LR, RC. My usual sticking point is LG, and in all of the PTs I have taken I have NEVER run out of time on an LR or an RC. Well, I ran out of time on my second LR this time. Of course, I filled in everything, but the last three or four I did were very rushed, maybe eliminating one or two wrong answers before just guessing.

It would not surprise me if LSAC did put some experimentals in the fourth section, just to change things up a bit. From what I've read though, it seems likely that even if they did, some people still had their experimentals at other times. Like the third section.

That's what I'm telling myself so I can sleep at night.

Two of three seemed really easy. The other was pretty tough, but manageable. Not like PT38

I think this LR was more tricky than people are giving it credit for.

Also, 3 independent sources I talked to had their experimental as the 4th section.

KevinP wrote:I think this LR was more tricky than people are giving it credit for.

Also, 3 independent sources I talked to had their experimental as the 4th section.

I doubt the independence of these sources Kev

JamMasterJ wrote:

KevinP wrote:I think this LR was more tricky than people are giving it credit for.

Also, 3 independent sources I talked to had their experimental as the 4th section.

I doubt the independence of these sources Kev

I could always fake wikipedia-type citations if you don't believe me

Totally disturbed, the LR was the reason I cancelled my score for the October test, not the games. I am glad someone finally brought it up.

I think the LR in general has been getting tougher and tougher starting from the PT50's. Why? Because it's less predictable. After drilling a ton of older LRs, PT 1-38, PT40-50 was a breeze. For a lot of the inference type questions, I could mechanically string together a bunch of conditionals to get the right answer. For the flaws, I could easily pick out recurring flaws I've seen countless times.

Recent tests have taken away a lot of that predictability. For instance, the stimulus for the inference questions are sometimes so convoluted that it is hard or impractical to diagram. For flaw questions they would entice you with a flaw you think you saw coming (like a suff vs necessary), but alter the wording so it would be wrong and distract you from the real, more vaguely worded flaw. (Evil)

I have a tough task ahead of me in adjusting to these harder LRs in time for the December test...

tepper wrote:

butchcassidy wrote:

tepper wrote:

poultry wrote:I am curious to see how you guys really feel about October's LR sections. Most of the discussion in the forum is about bombing the LG and the nasty bike game. It seems like folks feel pretty confident about LRs, which I feel especially nervous with. I had 3 sections of LR in the real test. The exp. section came after the break (4th section). My first section was a graded LR. Unfortunately I had to pee badly and I am worried that it might have affected my performance worse than I thought. Now the questions and topics from the three sections of LRs keep on popping to my head and I realized I made so far 2-3 obvious mistakes (how many errs are still lurking is unsure). This is really unsettling since LR has been my strong point and I always control mistakes within 4 for two LRs combined. Now just based on my memory I have picked up a lot of mistakes....Is it just me or the LR is tougher than usual?

I predict that I might miss 6-8 in the two LRs.

Hey, I just wanna let you know that the experimental section NEVER shows up after the break, it's always one of the first three sections. So the section you thought was experimental (4th) was actually scored. If you had two LRs before break and one LR after break, then one of the first two was experimental.

Not necessarily. Blueprint seems to think that some people got a 4th section experimental for the first time...
http://blueprintprep.com/lsatblog/tag/o ... 2011-lsat/

uh no...the article did not mention "4th section" anywhere, read your own source carefully before you make a claim.

Typical unwarranted TLS douche-baggery. They make reference to the experimental being in an "unusual spot" for some people. If that referred to people having an experimental in section 1, 2, or 3, it wouldn't be in an unusual spot, now would it? I also said that "Blueprint seems to think," not "some people's experimental was definitely 4th section," so I didn't make any claim that wasn't credited. Why do some people feel the need to be so preachy on an internet forum? Fucking bizarre.