The Official October 2015 Study Group Forum
- Mint-Berry_Crunch
- Posts: 5816
- Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 1:20 am
Post removed...
Post removed...
Last edited by Mint-Berry_Crunch on Fri Jan 01, 2016 12:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
- flash21
- Posts: 1536
- Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:56 pm
Re: The Official October 2015 Study Group
Which Lr was fake
- Sera Numquam
- Posts: 692
- Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 3:58 pm
Re: The Official October 2015 Study Group
I'M FREE.
RC
LR
LR
LG
LR
I feel good. How does everyone else feel?
I hope my first LR was fake though.
RC
LR
LR
LG
LR
I feel good. How does everyone else feel?
I hope my first LR was fake though.
-
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:37 pm
Re: The Official October 2015 Study Group
.
Last edited by npt2901 on Thu Jan 14, 2016 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:37 pm
Re: The Official October 2015 Study Group
.
Last edited by npt2901 on Thu Jan 14, 2016 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- gatesome
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 7:43 pm
Re: The Official October 2015 Study Group
Oasis thread seems confident that real was 25/26 (but if you had 2x 26 one was exp.)npt2901 wrote:Please say the 26 question one was fake
Other guy: 26, 26, 25
Me: 25, 25, 26
-
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:37 pm
Re: The Official October 2015 Study Group
.
Last edited by npt2901 on Thu Jan 14, 2016 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:47 pm
Re: The Official October 2015 Study Group
does anyone know if the LG where there were it was mod edit: do not state what kind of game was involved this is your only warning i think
Last edited by asd401 on Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Sera Numquam
- Posts: 692
- Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 3:58 pm
Re: The Official October 2015 Study Group
That was real!asd401 wrote:does anyone know if the LG where there were two consecutive L's but L could not be with G was real or experimental? it was an advanced linear i think
- gatesome
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 7:43 pm
Re: The Official October 2015 Study Group
Real.asd401 wrote:does anyone know if the LG where there were [...]
Last edited by gatesome on Sat Oct 03, 2015 2:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:37 pm
Re: The Official October 2015 Study Group
.
Last edited by npt2901 on Thu Jan 14, 2016 12:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Sera Numquam
- Posts: 692
- Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 3:58 pm
Re: The Official October 2015 Study Group
I hate having LR experimental because it's hard to figure out which one it is. I figured out it was one with 26 questions, but other than I'm not sure.
- A. Nony Mouse
- Posts: 29293
- Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am
Re: The Official October 2015 Study Group
I'm late posting this, but, please READ AND HEED the rules below:
Mods will be reviewing these threads and will issue bans for violation of the above rules. This is your only warning. Thanks.TLS Moderators wrote: 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 September 2014 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 LSAT questions and answers when you completed your signing statement when taking the test. The LSAC considers it a violation to discuss specific questions and answers; the LSAC will act accordingly upon discovering discussion of specific questions and answers. Be advised that the LSAC and its agents monitor this board.
Analytical Reasoning Example wrote: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.Logical Reasoning Example wrote: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.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- A. Nony Mouse
- Posts: 29293
- Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am
Re: The Official October 2015 Study Group
Like, don't do this:
asd401 wrote:does anyone know if the LG where there were it was mod edit: do not state what kind of game was involved this is your only warning i think
- CoolerThanCooley
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Sat May 02, 2015 12:17 pm
Re: The Official October 2015 Study Group
I completely bombed. Hell, I may have done even worse on this test than I had done on my diagnostic. I had to guess on a bunch of the questions at the end of RC, and I was too nervous to focus during the LR sections.
Time for me to switch to the December Study Group, I guess. *sigh*
It sure hurts to see one's dreams postponed. Hope you guys had a much better experience than I did.
Time for me to switch to the December Study Group, I guess. *sigh*
It sure hurts to see one's dreams postponed. Hope you guys had a much better experience than I did.
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2015 2:26 pm
Re: The Official October 2015 Study Group
Ok, still trying to figure out which LR was fake.
One of mine was 26 questions long and had two questions about the same prompt! This seemed unusual to me... So i think it may be experimental. Can anyone confirm if the two real LRs didn't have two questions about one prompt?
One of mine was 26 questions long and had two questions about the same prompt! This seemed unusual to me... So i think it may be experimental. Can anyone confirm if the two real LRs didn't have two questions about one prompt?
- gatesome
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 7:43 pm
Re: The Official October 2015 Study Group
I also has this, in section 2 (I think) or 3, one of which was for sure exp.Ag21ag21 wrote:Ok, still trying to figure out which LR was fake.
One of mine was 26 questions long and had two questions about the same prompt! This seemed unusual to me... So i think it may be experimental. Can anyone confirm if the two real LRs didn't have two questions about one prompt?
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2015 2:42 pm
Re: The Official October 2015 Study Group
-sigh- had LR LG RC LR LG (3rd game was tough)
-
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 3:04 pm
Re: The Official October 2015 Study Group
nope did not have that, that must've been exp.Ag21ag21 wrote:Ok, still trying to figure out which LR was fake.
One of mine was 26 questions long and had two questions about the same prompt! This seemed unusual to me... So i think it may be experimental. Can anyone confirm if the two real LRs didn't have two questions about one prompt?
- gatesome
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 7:43 pm
Re: The Official October 2015 Study Group
Interesting. Did you have a question about hairless dogs from Mexico/Peru?MischiefManaged16 wrote:nope did not have that, that must've been exp.Ag21ag21 wrote:Ok, still trying to figure out which LR was fake.
One of mine was 26 questions long and had two questions about the same prompt! This seemed unusual to me... So i think it may be experimental. Can anyone confirm if the two real LRs didn't have two questions about one prompt?
-
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 3:04 pm
Re: The Official October 2015 Study Group
yes, that was realgatesome wrote:Interesting. Did you have a question about hairless dogs from Mexico/Peru?MischiefManaged16 wrote:nope did not have that, that must've been exp.Ag21ag21 wrote:Ok, still trying to figure out which LR was fake.
One of mine was 26 questions long and had two questions about the same prompt! This seemed unusual to me... So i think it may be experimental. Can anyone confirm if the two real LRs didn't have two questions about one prompt?
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- 204Wpg
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 4:46 pm
Re: The Official October 2015 Study Group
That was real - I had two RCs and I remember that one on my LR.gatesome wrote:Interesting. Did you have a question about hairless dogs from Mexico/Peru?MischiefManaged16 wrote:nope did not have that, that must've been exp.Ag21ag21 wrote:Ok, still trying to figure out which LR was fake.
One of mine was 26 questions long and had two questions about the same prompt! This seemed unusual to me... So i think it may be experimental. Can anyone confirm if the two real LRs didn't have two questions about one prompt?
-
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:37 pm
Re: The Official October 2015 Study Group
.
Last edited by npt2901 on Thu Jan 14, 2016 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2015 2:26 pm
Re: The Official October 2015 Study Group
gatesome wrote:Interesting. Did you have a question about hairless dogs from Mexico/Peru?MischiefManaged16 wrote:nope did not have that, that must've been exp.Ag21ag21 wrote:Ok, still trying to figure out which LR was fake.
One of mine was 26 questions long and had two questions about the same prompt! This seemed unusual to me... So i think it may be experimental. Can anyone confirm if the two real LRs didn't have two questions about one prompt?
Yes. Don't remember which LR this question was though.
-
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2015 6:20 pm
Re: The Official October 2015 Study Group
Does anyone remember total number of constraints on second real LG. I was thinking 4 but I cannot recall.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login