Him mentioning tutoring was just a way to illustrate he knows the tests in and out and the test metadata. So, he could have info about the % of people who achieved near perfect scores, and which types of problems they missed and why.

not sure that I have ever mentioned it on 2p2 but I have told several poker playing friends how stupid you are based solely on your posts in politics and then linked them to it. I can have them attest to that fact if it is a prerequisite to accepting this bet.

disclaimer - I took the LSAT once upon a time, am a lawyer, and know how stupid you are based on your politics posts.

RINGER.

(aka ill also bet on disko should anyone want side action). not such a BIG BALLER but i would do up to 1k w escrow.

The whole argument can be condensed to anyone who thinks they can prove they are good at thinking via LSAT test is not good at thinking.

The LSAT is a really poorly designed test for something like this precisely because tutors of it can increase people's scores pretty significantly.

Is this test one of those ones where it's like a square with a triangle in it then a square with a circle in it then a square with the corner cut out, what's next? Because I hate those. Though in fairness I am pretty dumb.

those are called raven matrices and are the most culture and knowledge independent tests there is for iq measurements.

I guess my bet's never going to happen, so I can say this. I viewed reading comprehension as my firewall, and I even think it's possible that David wasn't aware that it's a section on the test until it was mentioned here.

Yeah the bet is never going to happen but even just of the common sections Sklansky doesn't do well at necessary/sufficient or the causal arrow between related variables.

Clearly the answer is for one of the people smarter than David to design a logic test that's fair. Stephen Hawking lives in the UK, so he's out. Is there anyone local comparable?

Even the reading comprehension portion of the LSAT is mostly logic although some questions are asking you to choose between two good answers that basically make even long time LSAT tutors scratch their heads and go "I get what they are doing here but wtf..?"

Yeah, that was why I left room for missing reading comp questions. From time to time you come across one where it is apparent that the questions is rigged and you are flipping re whether you're on the level the test author was on, or on the only other possible level.

That can honestly be frustrating and unsettling when it happens.

And then sometimes the **** is so painfully boring that you literally cannot pay attention to it and misread it, hence "reading comprehension." That's the other way to screw up that section.

Yeah, and he really underestimates how good people at top law schools will be at logic. I've tried to teach him pretty basic stuff (what is Godel's incompleteness theorem, what does it mean for a statement to be independent of a set of axioms etc) and don't think he could pass a basic logic 101 test on those concepts. Stuff that could easily be taught to high school grads at their first week of college. I cant imagine anybody i know that went to a good law school that wouldn't be able to pick that stuff up from wikepedia, mathoverflow and asking someone a few questions in a week. I imagine most people that understand those topics, and certainly me, learned it that way.

Agree that the reading comprehension is the only stumbling block because unlike the other sections which have an unambiguously correct answer, with reading comp you're really just going for the "best" answer. This is pretty much true for any standardized test where reading comp is a part (LSAT, SAT, MCAT, etc).

Of course, that while reading comp is the only section where I'd be likely to get something wrong, it's also the area where I'd have the greatest edge over DS. As much as I like to troll him, I think with a little practice (mostly to get the timing down) he could very easily get to point where games, logic, etc. are trivial (clearly lots of people on here have that ability -- it's not that impressive). On the other hand, I think it would take a lot more practice for him to be near perfect at reading comp, especially if his responses to posts around here are any indication.

Guys... the sensation you are all describing of some reading comprehension questions being inscrutable and mysterious and lacking an unambiguous answer is actually the sensation of encountering a question that is too difficult for you.

AHA SHATS FIRED

MEET ME IN THE DESIGNATED TESTING AREA

ITS GOING DOWN

Not clear if you're trolling, but I'll pretend you're not.

No, it's not that. Think of it from the question writer's point of view. It's much easier to write an question with unambiguous answer to a logic puzzle than it is to a reading comprehension question. The questions are written by humans, and when they ask a question along the lines of "Which of the following does the author likely think..." it is easier to create unintended ambiguity. You can't really do that when you're asking someone what 2+2 is.

And I don't think that anyone here discussing this falls in the category of it being "too difficult for you". From my own perspective, it's the difference between getting a wrong answer rarely (reading comp) and extremely rarely (logic, games, etc.).

Neither is difficult. It's just that one is less difficult (at least for me).

There is one thing I was curious about, which maybe you guys who tutored or know a lot of lawyers may know.

Does anyone know of anyone that got a 180 on the real thing. I know many (15-20 people) who got 175+ and a couple of 179s, but not a single 180 and all of these people would get a perfect score on a practice test at least 1/3 of the times (probably more).

If makes me wonder that if on a certain administration of the exam they could curve it in such a way that even if one got every answer correct, they still could not get a 180.

Anyone know for sure if getting every answer correct is an automatic 180 on every administration of the exam?

fixed

Interested for fun, but I wanna hear more about different tests / rules. Seems very hard to proctor fairly unless both people are in the same physical location.

Edit: I think the LSAT is too much about studying, don't have a good alternate suggestion for "logic test" though.

I know at least two. One is incredibly intelligent and an amazingly fast processor. The other is smart enough, but not super smart.

For whatever it's worth, the first is distinctly lacking in other areas. He values personal relationships only insofar as they personally benefit him (usually financially) and he is about as low on the empathy scale as you can be.

Amazing. I was actually thinking you guys were being a little to hard on Sklansky till this post brought me back down to Earth. So good.

Given that Sklansky seems pretty invested in getting everyone here to think he is super smart, talking up his presumptive test scores feels like failing an intelligence test of his own design.

so in short hes a psychopath.

Does David deny his ability to generalize logic /reasoning to scenarios involving human behavior? Because that appears to be the biggest complaint by forum regs.

If so it might be more fun to place O/U bets on his score on a licensure exam, perhaps one that uses case vignettes. Think the one for masters level counselors is most complex and relies heavily on scenarios. Perhaps not the best option but would be good for the LOLs.