Random Panic thought clear process end result: of all 3 sect

[lathlee]

Hi. Just a random thought and i do this kind of thinking a lot when i am in front of write LSAT, would it fair to say of all 3 sections, of course luck matters in everything in life including LSAT, eg. getting a favourable and preferable questions or the worst performance level occuring only in experimental section, doing well in reading comprehension, luck proportion plays the biggest proportion of all three as in LG and LR, luck importance in doing well matters 5%, reading comprehension luck's importance doing well matters 7%?

as I was going over the parts that I got wrong in the past in RC, and in 2016 RC book, chapter 3 of passage 6 regarding Homer and virgil, which contains TRAP of ORDER I got destroyed in structural analysis first two attempts in the past cuz I failed to see the word , later, in 4th last sentence which was so essential in avoiding the trap of order in this practice. (the answer for this located in pg 129 of 2016 RC.)

cuz as I was thinking, of all the weaknesses that one has in LG, LR, and RC, one can vastly improve to possibly complete master the weak grip parts in doing questions over and over again in LG and LR. but in RC, one small word can make the complete difference as i above state and almost everyone does miss out reading one word or appreciating the importance of one word. This is the first reason that I believe luck matters more in RC. Even if one makes such a mistake in LR and LG, one has the option of going back to the parts and can easily recognize what has been missing in the comprehension process, whereas RC parts, even if one has the time to go back, one may not know which part to go back.

Secondly, if i was a college major of classics, then i would recognize this trap of order can save myself as in rc, as stastically proved, the topic that one has familar with or passion for, one performs compartively better. where as in LG and LR, even if there is a question type one lacks, there are thousands of prep questions one can practice over and over again to improve and ultimately i believe, anyone can have strong grasp of. whereas in RC, even if one has strong grasp of trap of order, if one is faced with novel topic , anyone can miss out one word (i am relating to my first point)

is it fair?

[Jon Denning]

Hi lathlee - are you asking if that assessment is fair, where you feel luck plays a greater role in RC than in other sections?

If so, then I'd say: perhaps.

Sure, there's the notion of getting lucky in terms of seeing passage topics with which you're familiar. That's a good break...although as always the topic doesn't matter, since the LSAT will always give you all the information you need to analyze and comprehend what's being discussed. Familiarity may lead to greater comfort, in which case it's lucky I suppose, but if read correctly every passage can be comfortably deconstructed. As for misreading a word/phrase/idea or not, that's not luck—that's skill. Granted, the consequences of completely misunderstanding a passage may be greater than those of misinterpreting an LR stimulus (multiple questions missed vs just the one in LR), but again I don't consider that good or bad fortune. I consider it good or bad test taking.

And the rewards of properly understanding a passage vs an LR question are commensurately significant.

Further, luck by that definition is equally important in LG: seeing games or rules that feel familiar is a good break, especially if it's an outlier type such as Pattern, but mostly that's a distinction between well-prepared and under-prepared. Misreading a scenario or rule, or diagramming incorrectly, isn't luck either. Games may provide a louder, faster alarm if you've made a mistake in your setup than does RC with passage errors, but calling that luck in my mind misdescribes the fundamental situation: luck is what happens to you outside of your control; errors are what you commit when you mishandle elements within your control.

I think the luck aspect is more about big-picture issues: section order, experimental type, final curve/scale, testing environment, proctor quality, and so on. Those are all out of your hands. What happens on the test itself, well, that you can control so luck should make little difference.

Finally, it doesn't matter. Regardless of how we define or attempt to assign it, if something does come down to luck then there's nothing you can do about it, so no need to worry. If it's not luck then you're better off studying hard so you can conquer anything you face, rather than worrying about it