PT 59 Discussion HERE

honestabe84
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:47 pm

PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby honestabe84 » Wed Jun 02, 2010 10:36 pm

I have never seen anything like PT 59. It seems like the creators of the LSAT made some big changes with this test, specifically with LR. I found LR (especially the first one) very strange and hard. There seemed to be many 'new' questions - I seriously think the creators of the LSAT are attempting to counteract the prep companies. The curve is the only thing on this test that saved my score - I scored maybe a point or two below my average. As for the other two sections, I thought LG was nothing unusual (maybe more time consuming, though), but RC was probably a little more difficult that usual.

Anyway, I figured many of you that are prepping for the 7th will be taking this PT soon (or have already), and I thought we could use this thread to discuss the test, especially some of the harder LR questions.

User avatar
jpSartre
Posts: 326
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:05 am

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby jpSartre » Wed Jun 02, 2010 10:52 pm

One of the 58 LRs felt different too, and I actually kind of like your LSAC/Prep Company theory.

I'm taking 59 on Friday, and will probably be redoing the LRs from 58 and 59 at the least. Good observation.

This is obviously speculation, but if they continue with the new LR trend it seems likely the curve next week may also be generous.

honestabe84
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:47 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby honestabe84 » Wed Jun 02, 2010 11:00 pm

jpSartre wrote:One of the 58 LRs felt different too, and I actually kind of like your LSAC/Prep Company theory.

I'm taking 59 on Friday, and will probably be redoing the LRs from 58 and 59 at the least. Good observation.

This is obviously speculation, but if they continue with the new LR trend it seems likely the curve next week may also be generous.


Yeah, I really wish we could know what the curve for February was. Maybe then we could speculate a little further on to expect on the 7th. Obviously we wouldn't be able to say definitively what the curve on June 7th will look like, but it would be interesting to know if the February test had another curve of -14. I hope you're right about 'new' LR prompting a generous curve, but you have to remember that TLS is a unique sample. Most people don't even take enough tests to even see a pattern, so I don't know how much of an impact new LR could have on the curve.

Make sure you report back after you take 59.

jeremychristiansen
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:44 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby jeremychristiansen » Wed Jun 02, 2010 11:04 pm

Sorry to burst your bubbles but I took February's test, and I don't ever remember any LR that I thought, "Well that is weird."
I may just be in trauma though because that test had a nasty game that I don't think I have ever recovered from.

honestabe84
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:47 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby honestabe84 » Wed Jun 02, 2010 11:13 pm

jeremychristiansen wrote:Sorry to burst your bubbles but I took February's test, and I don't ever remember any LR that I thought, "Well that is weird."
I may just be in trauma though because that test had a nasty game that I don't think I have ever recovered from.


While I did think that the first LR on 59 was harder, I didn't notice anything unusual about it until I actually reviewed the section. I think when you're taking the test, you develop tunnel vision, and you don't have any time to really reflect on the questions.

User avatar
jpSartre
Posts: 326
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:05 am

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby jpSartre » Wed Jun 02, 2010 11:15 pm

honestabe84 wrote:
jeremychristiansen wrote:Sorry to burst your bubbles but I took February's test, and I don't ever remember any LR that I thought, "Well that is weird."
I may just be in trauma though because that test had a nasty game that I don't think I have ever recovered from.


While I did think that the first LR on 59 was harder, I didn't notice anything unusual about it until I actually reviewed the section. I think when you're taking the test, you develop tunnel vision, and you don't have any time to really reflect on the questions.



Or they could even be phasing it in.

karcirate
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby karcirate » Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:27 pm

had another curve of -14

What do you mean by this? I have been seeing people mentioning a "curve", but all I can figure is that to get a 180, on some tests you can get 1 wrong, and on some up to 3 or 4. But nothing about a 14 point curve.

Kobe_Teeth
Posts: 964
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:40 am

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby Kobe_Teeth » Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:30 pm

karcirate wrote:
had another curve of -14

What do you mean by this? I have been seeing people mentioning a "curve", but all I can figure is that to get a 180, on some tests you can get 1 wrong, and on some up to 3 or 4. But nothing about a 14 point curve.



-14 to get a 170

The -10, -9 or whatever curve is in reference to how many you can get wrong and still get a 170.

Kobe_Teeth
Posts: 964
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:40 am

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby Kobe_Teeth » Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:31 pm

I took this test for real and got blindsided by the first LR and missed 0 on the other.

User avatar
Bert
Posts: 458
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:37 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby Bert » Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:33 pm

Curve refers to the maximum number of problems a test-taker can get wrong in order to have a score of 170. So, a -14 curve would mean that a test-taker can get 14 questions wrong and score 170.

honestabe84
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:47 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby honestabe84 » Thu Jun 03, 2010 1:15 pm

Kobe_Teeth wrote:I took this test for real and got blindsided by the first LR and missed 0 on the other.


I don't even know what to say about the first LR.

User avatar
nycsoul87
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:44 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby nycsoul87 » Thu Jun 03, 2010 1:22 pm

The Feb 2010 LSAT also had a "loose" curve. It was documented that there were ppl on TLS that received every score from 170-180. So assuming -1 for each point and allowing for getting at least 1 question wrong and still getting a 180, we had at least a -12 curve in Feb.
Last edited by nycsoul87 on Thu Jun 03, 2010 1:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kobe_Teeth
Posts: 964
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:40 am

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby Kobe_Teeth » Thu Jun 03, 2010 1:23 pm

I barely reviewed it because I was generally happy with my score. It seems like its just full of subtlety that does not lend itself to answering 25 questions in 35 minutes. I would review thoroughly if I were you though. PT 59 won't be the end of questions of that ilk.

cubswin
Posts: 618
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 4:40 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby cubswin » Thu Jun 03, 2010 4:08 pm

honestabe84 wrote:I have never seen anything like PT 59. It seems like the creators of the LSAT made some big changes with this test, specifically with LR. I found LR (especially the first one) very strange and hard. There seemed to be many 'new' questions - I seriously think the creators of the LSAT are attempting to counteract the prep companies. The curve is the only thing on this test that saved my score - I scored maybe a point or two below my average. As for the other two sections, I thought LG was nothing unusual (maybe more time consuming, though), but RC was probably a little more difficult that usual.

Anyway, I figured many of you that are prepping for the 7th will be taking this PT soon (or have already), and I thought we could use this thread to discuss the test, especially some of the harder LR questions.


The Noguchi passage has an unusual amount of questions that resemble Logical Reasoning questions. I think that's why some people consider 59's RC so tough.

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby d34d9823 » Thu Jun 03, 2010 4:11 pm

I just took this one last night. I didn't think the LR was bad, I went -1 and -0. The RC shot me down though. I missed two of the questions on the Noguchi passage.

honestabe84
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:47 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby honestabe84 » Thu Jun 03, 2010 4:46 pm

d34dluk3 wrote:I just took this one last night. I didn't think the LR was bad, I went -1 and -0. The RC shot me down though. I missed two of the questions on the Noguchi passage.


Really? You didn't find LR 1 to be especially difficult?

Noguchi passage? Is that the sculpture passage? If so, I also found that one particularly hard. I got most of the questions wrong on that one.

How did you feel about the games? On the last game I tried to identify the templates/possibilities and it completely screwed me on time.

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby d34d9823 » Thu Jun 03, 2010 4:56 pm

honestabe84 wrote:
d34dluk3 wrote:I just took this one last night. I didn't think the LR was bad, I went -1 and -0. The RC shot me down though. I missed two of the questions on the Noguchi passage.


Really? You didn't find LR 1 to be especially difficult?

Noguchi passage? Is that the sculpture passage? If so, I also found that one particularly hard. I got most of the questions wrong on that one.

How did you feel about the games? On the last game I tried to identify the templates/possibilities and it completely screwed me on time.

LR 1 was the one I went -1 on. I missed the question about humans carrying diseases across the Bering land bridge. Stupid reading comprehension mistake - crossed off the right answer because I didn't read it correctly. I didn't find any of the other questions that bad. I might have had to recheck a few more than normal, but I don't remember for sure.

Yeah, it was the sculpture passage. I missed one because I confused Fuller and Ford (doh!). I also missed the one about the dimensions of the sculpture because I didn't read the part about the dimensions being reflected on only a secondary level closely enough. RC was difficult as a whole as well. I usually have at least 5 minutes to check my answers, but I only had a minute and I think it cost me.

I thought the games were very difficult. I almost never miss questions on games if I have time to finish. That held true here, but I was down to like 45 seconds left. The last two minutes or so were nerve-wracking. I don't remember the particular games, but I definitely struggled a good bit.

honestabe84
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:47 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby honestabe84 » Thu Jun 03, 2010 4:57 pm

Can anyone help on number 20 of LR 1 (section 2). I don't understand why "D" is right and "B" and "C" are wrong. It's the one about field inspectors and defective samples of products from suppliers. Thank you for the help.

honestabe84
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:47 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby honestabe84 » Thu Jun 03, 2010 5:00 pm

d34dluk3 wrote:
honestabe84 wrote:
d34dluk3 wrote:I just took this one last night. I didn't think the LR was bad, I went -1 and -0. The RC shot me down though. I missed two of the questions on the Noguchi passage.


Really? You didn't find LR 1 to be especially difficult?

Noguchi passage? Is that the sculpture passage? If so, I also found that one particularly hard. I got most of the questions wrong on that one.

How did you feel about the games? On the last game I tried to identify the templates/possibilities and it completely screwed me on time.

LR 1 was the one I went -1 on. I missed the question about humans carrying diseases across the Bering land bridge. Stupid reading comprehension mistake - crossed off the right answer because I didn't read it correctly. I didn't find any of the other questions that bad. I might have had to recheck a few more than normal, but I don't remember for sure.

Yeah, it was the sculpture passage. I missed one because I confused Fuller and Ford (doh!). I also missed the one about the dimensions of the sculpture because I didn't read the part about the dimensions being reflected on only a secondary level closely enough. RC was difficult as a whole as well. I usually have at least 5 minutes to check my answers, but I only had a minute and I think it cost me.

I thought the games were very difficult. I almost never miss questions on games if I have time to finish. That held true here, but I was down to like 45 seconds left. The last two minutes or so were nerve-wracking. I don't remember the particular games, but I definitely struggled a good bit.


Good. I'm glad I'm not the only one who had a couple issues with the games.

The funny thing about the sculpture passage is that I found it fairly easy to read, but I thought questions were killer.

Do you typically score that well on LR, out of curiosity?

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby d34d9823 » Thu Jun 03, 2010 5:02 pm

honestabe84 wrote:Good. I'm glad I'm not the only one who had a couple issues with the games.

The funny thing about the sculpture passage is that I found it fairly easy to read, but I thought questions were killer.

Do you typically score that well on LR, out of curiosity?

Yeah, the passage wasn't that bad, but there were 3 or 4 challenging questions compared to the 1 you see normally.

Typically, yeah. I range from -2 to -0 on most LR sections.

User avatar
burtonrideclub
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:10 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby burtonrideclub » Thu Jun 03, 2010 5:32 pm

Could someone explain to me why #23 in the second LR is B, and not C? I'm really scratching my head on this one. Probably something simple I'm just not seeing .....

andreea7
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 2:32 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby andreea7 » Thu Jun 03, 2010 5:41 pm

burtonrideclub wrote:Could someone explain to me why #23 in the second LR is B, and not C? I'm really scratching my head on this one. Probably something simple I'm just not seeing .....



I am not very coherent at this hour in the day, but if you read the stimulus carefully, you will see that what the author is using is definitions to make the argument is defnitions -- it is not possible to predict it because by predicting it you are already inventing it. So it all revolves around the definitions of predicting/inventing. It is not a hypothesis. Makes sense? I am pretty sure when I took the test I answered mostly by instinct and now my analysis is probably not the best.

User avatar
hellojd
Posts: 411
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:29 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby hellojd » Thu Jun 03, 2010 5:43 pm

burtonrideclub wrote:Could someone explain to me why #23 in the second LR is B, and not C? I'm really scratching my head on this one. Probably something simple I'm just not seeing .....


He's using the typical definition of a device "one must..." to prove that it doesn't make sense.

C is wrong, because there is no hypothesis really here, and because he's not showing the implications of believing in anything.

Hope that makes sense, I just took this today, so my brain is still fried.

I did find the 1st LR quite hard.

Hey-O
Posts: 719
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:50 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby Hey-O » Thu Jun 03, 2010 6:49 pm

honestabe84 wrote:Can anyone help on number 20 of LR 1 (section 2). I don't understand why "D" is right and "B" and "C" are wrong. It's the one about field inspectors and defective samples of products from suppliers. Thank you for the help.


I second this request. I have read this question probably thirty times and I just don't see why D is right. How is D appreciably different from B?

Hey-O
Posts: 719
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:50 pm

Re: PT 59 Discussion HERE

Postby Hey-O » Thu Jun 03, 2010 6:55 pm

I thought this test was not as difficult as 58, but I thought that both had trickier LR. I don't think the LR is more difficult but trickier. Way more trick questions (BEARS) and weird wording.

The RC in 59 was also difficult. The passages were not that hard but the questions were far more difficult. I also struggled with the Noguchi passage. The first question (about non oxidizing metals) was awful and it took me too long. (I didn't know that oxidization is rust...one of many reasons to know more about science.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexandros, dj9i27, Yahoo [Bot] and 10 guests