Law School Discussion

it's over... October 2004 LSAT

Re: it's over... October 2004 LSAT
« Reply #30 on: October 03, 2004, 01:33:48 PM »
So, assuming there were 100 questions in all, how can I figure out what my score will be if I have a good idea of what I got? Would 70 right be somewhere in the ballpark of 159-160 or does it all depend on how LSAC wants to score it?


Re: it's over... October 2004 LSAT
« Reply #31 on: October 03, 2004, 02:03:05 PM »
And no, I didn't get a call from Lexy :(  So disappointed...

awww, i truly wanted to call, but i partied too hard friday (church fair? teenybopper dance club? shots at dive bar? please to not ask) and i woke up saturday without a voice. i sound like one of marge simpson's sisters. :-[

glad it went well!

Re: it's over... October 2004 LSAT
« Reply #32 on: October 04, 2004, 08:02:28 AM »
Everyones experiemental was the second section.  I had RC as my second and third sections.  Eight passages in a row really wore me out.  Are you guys sure that the pre-paid Canadian legal services was in the one that counted?  Or was it the one about the theory about Bach?


  • ****
  • 2640
  • LisBeth
    • View Profile
Re: it's over... October 2004 LSAT
« Reply #33 on: October 04, 2004, 08:05:36 AM »
Pre-paid Canadian legal services. I didn't have the other one and I only had one RC. Plus, games was experimental for me, and games came 2nd and 4th.



  • ****
  • 1295
    • View Profile
Re: it's over... October 2004 LSAT
« Reply #34 on: October 04, 2004, 11:03:11 AM »
Hope this helps:

Games—22 questions
The games were on par with those on other recent tests. There were no unusual or killer games, but there were no extremely easy games either. The lack of obvious difference in difficulty may have made it a bit harder to choose your order of attack, but the games themselves weren’t so bad. Taking the time to choose your games wisely, creating good diagrams, and looking for deductions were the key to success. Test takers rated the first game as easiest, and they split on whether the third or fourth game was the hardest. Here’s the rundown:
Game One (Easiest)
Order diagram—6 questions
You had to determine the order of seven meetings with five people. One person (F) attended three meetings, and the others attended one meeting each. Two of the non-repeated elements formed a block, and the repeated element (F) could not be placed in adjacent slots. A fixed clue listed two slots in which one of the elements could not be placed. Determining where to place the repeated element and the block drove the
game. Some of the specific questions created bigger blocks, thereby narrowing the options. Though the repetition of one element added to the difficulty of this game, it was still a relatively easy one-tier order game.

Game Two (Medium)
Group/order diagram—6 questions
Six dogs were to be given away on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, two dogs each day. The clues included one block (two dogs who had to be assigned to the same day), one antiblock (two dogs who had to be assigned to different days), and two conditional statements (along the lines of, “If A is on Monday, B is on Wednesday.”) Because two of the dogs had to be assigned to one day, the dogs listed in the antiblock clue had to be split between the two remaining days, as did the remaining two dogs. That is, the breakdown had to be AB, C/D E/F, D/C F/E. Some of the harder questions included ordering conditions (i.e., “If G is on an earlier day than H....”). The block was the most limiting aspect of the game, so finding its placement and working out the remaining options from there was the key to working the questions.

Game Three (Medium)
Two-tier diagram with distribution—5 questions
For each of five archaeological sites, test takers had to determine by whom (F, O, or G) it was discovered and from what century (eighth, ninth, or tenth) it dated. The sites represented the most fixed aspect of the game, and they formed the core of the diagram, with tiers for the discoverers and centuries. Because there were more slots than elements in each category, elements had to be repeated. One fixed clue ruled out O from the fourth and fifth sites. Another said that the third site was of more recent origin than the first or fourth. Other clues specified that G discovered only one site, which had to be from the tenth century, and that any 8th century sites were discovered by O. The language in the clues and questions made it easy to make errors. For example, a statement that one site was from a more recent period than another meant that the first site had to be from a later century than the other, but it would have been easy to mistakenly assign the first site to a lower-numbered century. Numerous deductions could be made for this game. Those who worked through the deductions and paid careful attention to the language found this game do-able.

Game Four (Medium)
Two-tier diagram with distribution, 5 questions
A woman drove to the city five days a week, Monday through Friday, and parked in one of three lots (X, Y, or Z). The price for parking was $10, $15, or $20. This game needed a two-tier diagram with Monday through Friday across the top and tiers for parking lot and cost. The clues specified that she parked at lot Z more often than she did at lot X, that lot X cost more than did lot Z, that she spent more on Wednesday than on Friday, and that she spent $15 on Thursday. Because the woman parked at lot Z more often than at lot X and had to park at Y at least once, two distributions were possible: XZZYY or XZZZY. As with the third game, this game went quickly once you had the deductions. If you struggled with the setup, you had to
spend more time trying out options when working the questions.

Scored Arguments (25 and 26 questions)
One scored arguments section had 25 questions, and the other had 26. Examinees reported that the 25-question section was easier than the 26-question section, largely due to the mix of question types. The second section included some less-common variations, such as could-be-true-EXCEPT and fill-in-the-blank inferences. The overall breakdown of question types was largely in keeping with arguments sections from our materials. There were plenty of strengthen, weaken, assumption, and flaw questions. Unlike the June exam, there was not a preponderance of principle questions. As we’ve come to expect, the early questions in each section were generally easier than those later in the section. On the whole, students comfortable
with our techniques should have felt well prepared. Breaking down the arguments and using POE remain the most important techniques.

Scored Reading Comprehension (27 questions)
The Reading Comp section offered the usual breakdown of topics—science, law, social science, and arts/humanities. Examinees varied in their assessment of passage difficulty, but many said the science and humanities passages had the most difficult questions. Those familiar with the June 2004 exam felt that Reading Comp was easier on the October test. The breakdown of question types was typical of that on other recent exams. The long-term trend toward the inclusion of more complex questions continued on this exam.

Passage One: The Law Passage (easier)
57 lines, 7 questions—The passage dealt with group legal coverage provided by some Canadian unions and considered how the plans affect lawyers. Test takers found the passage and questions straightforward but dull.
Passage Two: The Social Science Passage (easier)
58 lines, 7 questions—The passage discussed developments in the historiography of Pacific Coast settlement and development. New work indicates that Chinese immigrants engaged in agriculture had a positive impact on the region’s success. Test takers found both the passage and questions very approachable.
Passage Three: The Science Passage (harder)
60 lines, 6 questions —The passage described how neuron growth factor was discovered and how the factor functions. Some examinees found the passage readable, while others were intimidated by the topic.All reported that the questions were difficult.
Passage Four: The Humanities Passage (harder)
64 lines, 7 questions—The passage concerned the reasons for the decline of the modernist movement in architecture. The passage was harder to read than some others in the section. There were some complex questions, and narrowing the answer choices proved difficult.

Re: it's over... October 2004 LSAT
« Reply #35 on: October 16, 2004, 12:11:27 PM »
one more week!! ???