Top Law Schools

For those who have taken the LSAT, was it easy to tell which section the experimental was? Or did it feel like any other section and you had to wait to figure out which one it was?

can't tell and you shouldn't try to.

MAPP wrote:For those who have taken the LSAT, was it easy to tell which section the experimental was? Or did it feel like any other section and you had to wait to figure out which one it was?

I couldn't tell which one it was. However, since there were supposed to be 2 LR, 1 LG and 1 RC being graded, I at least knew that one of my LR sections had to be the experimental since I had three of them on my exam. It didn't really help to have figured that out because i just treated them all the same. It's pretty useless to try and guess because then you'll be a fool if you get it wrong and that will reflect in your score lol

I was literally dreaming about the experimental this morning...

My dream self was thinking, "Oh, my first section was LG, so this second one, being LG, HAS to be the experimental," then skipped it.

...Dumbass.

I've taken about fifteen 5-section practice tests and was able to predict which section was experimental on two of them. The giveaway was subject matter in the section that was created relatively recently. For example, in the experimental LR section, one question asked me about use of the term "lol." The experimental RC passage I was able to identify contained a comparative reading passage with excepts published in 2004 and 2007. In some cases, I believe it's possible to have an idea of which section is experimental.

With that being said, I would treat all sections equally. The risk/reward calculation for trying to identify the experimental section is not favorable.

.

It's not easy to tell from what everyone says, but when I took in June I was able to tell the difference. I wasn't 100% sure but I had a feeling that the experimental RC was in fact experimental because its vibe was a lot harder than the real RC section. Turned out that it actually was the experimental, and either way, i bombed the real one LMAO.

Just treat all sections like they count, because you just never know.

proteinshake wrote:can't tell and you shouldn't try to.

yeah actually I remember one time I had a passage that was by a very famous scientist who is alive (not sure if I'm allowed to say the content) and had a feeling it was the E section, and it was.

I had three LR sections on my June test. I had no idea which was experimental.

I heard the dudes who had two LG sections had a pretty easy time IDing it though...apparently the experimental was A LOT easier than the real thing.

ponderingmeerkat wrote:I had three LR sections on my June test. I had no idea which was experimental.

I heard the dudes who had two LG sections had a pretty easy time IDing it though...apparently the experimental was A LOT easier than the real thing.

Really? I remember ayylmao saying his experimental LG was harder? Idk, I might be bugging out. I was one of the only ones on here with an RC experimental. Those fuckers.

TheMikey wrote:

ponderingmeerkat wrote:I had three LR sections on my June test. I had no idea which was experimental.

I heard the dudes who had two LG sections had a pretty easy time IDing it though...apparently the experimental was A LOT easier than the real thing.

Really? I remember ayylmao saying his experimental LG was harder? Idk, I might be bugging out. I was one of the only ones on here with an RC experimental. Those fuckers.

Uhhhhh...maybe?? I could've sworn it was easier. Ehhh, either way, the LG folks could ID it.

caitlinrw wrote:

MAPP wrote:For those who have taken the LSAT, was it easy to tell which section the experimental was? Or did it feel like any other section and you had to wait to figure out which one it was?

I couldn't tell which one it was. However, since there were supposed to be 2 LR, 1 LG and 1 RC being graded, I at least knew that one of my LR sections had to be the experimental since I had three of them on my exam. It didn't really help to have figured that out because i just treated them all the same. It's pretty useless to try and guess because then you'll be a fool if you get it wrong and that will reflect in your score lol

This

MAPP wrote:For those who have taken the LSAT, was it easy to tell which section the experimental was? Or did it feel like any other section and you had to wait to figure out which one it was?

It's not easy or even possible to tell, despite what some people will tell you (and believe me, the people who think they can tell the difference will tell you ), so don't waste your energy trying to figure it out. My hunch is that the LSAT administrators are smart (and cruel) enough to know not to make the experimental section obviously different from the others. I had two RC sections on mine, so I knew that one was the experimental. But when I thought about which one was the experimental, I came up with a good case for both. One seemed pretty easy, with one strange and unconventional passage, while the other was just brutally difficult the whole way through. But then again, judging difficulty on RC passages is often pretty subjective, so who knows if "easy" or "hard" even mean anything in this case.

MAPP wrote:For those who have taken the LSAT, was it easy to tell which section the experimental was? Or did it feel like any other section and you had to wait to figure out which one it was?

Nope, had no idea at all. The only thing I knew was that it was an RC section because I had two of them.

Also, I don't remember where I read this but someone guessed which was the experimental section one time and decided not to do the section and was wrong so they bombed a whole section! I don't know why anyone would even be willing to risk it.

TakeItToTrial wrote:I've taken about fifteen 5-section practice tests and was able to predict which section was experimental on two of them. The giveaway was subject matter in the section that was created relatively recently. For example, in the experimental LR section, one question asked me about use of the term "lol." The experimental RC passage I was able to identify contained a comparative reading passage with excepts published in 2004 and 2007. In some cases, I believe it's possible to have an idea of which section is experimental.

With that being said, I would treat all sections equally. The risk/reward calculation for trying to identify the experimental section is not favorable.

Sorry, but I do not understand this post at all.

How are you able to identify experimental sections in practice tests?

Are you adding your own? If so, wouldn't those have to be real practice test sections?

dontsaywhatyoumean wrote:

TakeItToTrial wrote:I've taken about fifteen 5-section practice tests and was able to predict which section was experimental on two of them. The giveaway was subject matter in the section that was created relatively recently. For example, in the experimental LR section, one question asked me about use of the term "lol." The experimental RC passage I was able to identify contained a comparative reading passage with excepts published in 2004 and 2007. In some cases, I believe it's possible to have an idea of which section is experimental.

With that being said, I would treat all sections equally. The risk/reward calculation for trying to identify the experimental section is not favorable.

Sorry, but I do not understand this post at all.

How are you able to identify experimental sections in practice tests?

Are you adding your own? If so, wouldn't those have to be real practice test sections?

I'm currently taking a prep course through Testmasters, and they give you 5-section practice tests that include the real experimental section. Before Testmasters, I had never seen a 5-section practice test, so I understand where you're coming from.

TakeItToTrial wrote:

dontsaywhatyoumean wrote:

TakeItToTrial wrote:I've taken about fifteen 5-section practice tests and was able to predict which section was experimental on two of them. The giveaway was subject matter in the section that was created relatively recently. For example, in the experimental LR section, one question asked me about use of the term "lol." The experimental RC passage I was able to identify contained a comparative reading passage with excepts published in 2004 and 2007. In some cases, I believe it's possible to have an idea of which section is experimental.

With that being said, I would treat all sections equally. The risk/reward calculation for trying to identify the experimental section is not favorable.

Sorry, but I do not understand this post at all.

How are you able to identify experimental sections in practice tests?

Are you adding your own? If so, wouldn't those have to be real practice test sections?

I'm currently taking a prep course through Testmasters, and they give you 5-section practice tests that include the real experimental section. Before Testmasters, I had never seen a 5-section practice test, so I understand where you're coming from.

Umm...what? The LSAT doesn't release experimental sections. Testmasters is probably just giving you a section from a different test (probably newer) which is why you're able to tell the difference. You can't tell the difference between experimental and normal sections on the real test (in terms of content) because the sections are all from roughly the same time period.

Okay, glad I understood/misunderstood correctly.
I was wondering why no one else had said anything.

nate3869 wrote:

TakeItToTrial wrote:

dontsaywhatyoumean wrote:

TakeItToTrial wrote:I've taken about fifteen 5-section practice tests and was able to predict which section was experimental on two of them. The giveaway was subject matter in the section that was created relatively recently. For example, in the experimental LR section, one question asked me about use of the term "lol." The experimental RC passage I was able to identify contained a comparative reading passage with excepts published in 2004 and 2007. In some cases, I believe it's possible to have an idea of which section is experimental.

With that being said, I would treat all sections equally. The risk/reward calculation for trying to identify the experimental section is not favorable.

Sorry, but I do not understand this post at all.

How are you able to identify experimental sections in practice tests?

Are you adding your own? If so, wouldn't those have to be real practice test sections?

I'm currently taking a prep course through Testmasters, and they give you 5-section practice tests that include the real experimental section. Before Testmasters, I had never seen a 5-section practice test, so I understand where you're coming from.

Umm...what? The LSAT doesn't release experimental sections. Testmasters is probably just giving you a section from a different test (probably newer) which is why you're able to tell the difference. You can't tell the difference between experimental and normal sections on the real test (in terms of content) because the sections are all from roughly the same time period.

Didn't know that, but it makes sense. However the example I gave above using the term "lol" was actually from the October 2015 LSAT, the actual administration, not a practice test. I guessed it was the experimental while taking the test and was correct.

Not saying it's possible every time, but I was able to guess correctly based on use of newly created language at least once. Maybe I just got lucky.

Moral of the story: don't listen to anyone who says they can predict which section is the experimental. You spent too much money on the exam and on prepping to blow your score attempting to cut corners because you "thought" you could tell which was the experimental. Treat all 5 sections the same, and your score will thank you for it.

As everyone has said, don't try to predict it. I was pretty sure I knew which one was experimental, though - two LG sections and one of them was beyond simple. If I had to guess, they were trying to make sure they had their easy sequencing game as easy as they wanted them to be. leaving the test I just remember thinking, there's no way I got off that easy on LG. I didn't.

You shouldn't try to figure out which one was the experiment because it throws you off. Go in there treating the LSAT as an exam with 5 graded sections and prepare for it.

Although as I took the LSATs 3 times, I realized there was something slightly off about some of the sections (which often turned out to be the experimental BUT NOT ALWAYS). For example, one of the LRs had one of those old 2 questions for 1 stem, and one LG section was just 4 basic sequencing games.

caitlinrw wrote:Moral of the story: don't listen to anyone who says they can predict which section is the experimental. You spent too much money on the exam and on prepping to blow your score attempting to cut corners because you "thought" you could tell which was the experimental. Treat all 5 sections the same, and your score will thank you for it.

Except that sometimes it is possible to predict. But as everyone in this thread has said, it would be foolish to not treat all five sections equally.

Thomas Hagan, ESQ. wrote: and one LG section was just 4 basic sequencing games.

Haha, that sounds great; substantially better than a logic game experimental section from Hell