Pt 50-60 September Crew. Enter Here

User avatar
Cromartie
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:27 pm

Re: Pt 50-60 September Crew. Enter Here

Postby Cromartie » Tue Sep 21, 2010 1:09 am

eit wrote:
Cromartie wrote:PT 54 is in the books.

RC -0
Struggled a bit with the group think passage, but all others were very manageable.

LR - 1
Question no. 1 - wtf??? - chose C instead of D. I am still not convinced that retirees do not constitute a representative sample since they were employees at one time or another.

LG -0
Ironically, I skipped Games 2 and 3 and went ahead to Game 4 since I initially thought 2 and 3 were tough...turns out 4 was tougher. For 2, the NH block and Q being restricted to 3 or 4 stars, taken with the fact that at most 2 can have the same ratings, pretty much restricted the number of possible solutions. For 3, the templates were pretty much driven by the LM >O > S block. No. 4 was trickier to manage because of the inverse relationship (intuitively) between positions 1 through 6 and lowest to highest/highest to lowest. I initially set it up inversely and had to redo my set-up.

LR 2 - 1
No. 4, chose E instead of D. Still not convinced about this one either. The reason I picked E is that it would appear that Ray has presupposed that only his interpretation/conclusion is valid.

Overall: 99/180

After being on the fringe the past couple of PT's, I finally get my 4th 180! Detailed review will have to wait until after my basketball game tonight. PT 55 on Wednesday night.


Congrats on your 180.

I think question 1 has to do with self selection. Respondents to the survey chose to respond to the survey, they might be unrepresentative of the group as a whole.


This makes a lot of sense. So you are making the distinction not based on retirees/current employees, but on people who have more favorable sentiments being more likely to respond to the survey than those who have unfavorable sentiments. I missed that angle. Definitely makes sense.

User avatar
Cromartie
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:27 pm

Re: Pt 50-60 September Crew. Enter Here

Postby Cromartie » Tue Sep 21, 2010 1:18 am

birdlaw117 wrote:
Cromartie wrote:LR - 1
Question no. 1 - wtf??? - chose C instead of D. I am still not convinced that retirees do not constitute a representative sample since they were employees at one time or another.


Retirees are not a representative sample for multiple reasons.

1. Retirees finished their careers at this company, therefore the age is not representative.
2. Retirees most likely were not working at an entry-level position.
3. Retirees represent a sample of workers who were treated well enough to continue working there.
4. Retirees represent a sample of workers who are more likely to have worked at the company for a longer period of time.

Hope this helps!


I can go with no. 3. 1, 2 and 4, not so much. For no. 1, how do you know that the company is not comprised of 60-65 year old workers? For no. 2, how do you know that entry-level workers do not constitute an insignificant portion of the company's workforce? For no. 4, how do you know that the company is not made up mostly of employees who have worked at the company for a long time? Conversely, how do you know that the retirees are not mostly made up of workers who only worked at the company for a few months or years before they retired? No. 3 works because regardless of what other situations may exist, it is sufficient by itself to raise the possibility of bias on the part of the retiree-respondents.

To those who are getting annoyed with my ramblings, my apologies. I am trying to get my LR from -1, -2 to -0, and it's the little nuances like these that are keeping me from doing that. I figure reasoning things out with those who are willing to indulge me can only help me refine my thought process.

User avatar
birdlaw117
Posts: 2167
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:19 am

Re: Pt 50-60 September Crew. Enter Here

Postby birdlaw117 » Tue Sep 21, 2010 1:32 am

Cromartie wrote:
birdlaw117 wrote:
Cromartie wrote:LR - 1
Question no. 1 - wtf??? - chose C instead of D. I am still not convinced that retirees do not constitute a representative sample since they were employees at one time or another.


Retirees are not a representative sample for multiple reasons.

1. Retirees finished their careers at this company, therefore the age is not representative.
2. Retirees most likely were not working at an entry-level position.
3. Retirees represent a sample of workers who were treated well enough to continue working there.
4. Retirees represent a sample of workers who are more likely to have worked at the company for a longer period of time.

Hope this helps!


I can go with no. 3. 1, 2 and 4, not so much. For no. 1, how do you know that the company is not comprised of 60-65 year old workers? For no. 2, how do you know that entry-level workers do not constitute an insignificant portion of the company's workforce? For no. 4, how do you know that the company is not made up mostly of employees who have worked at the company for a long time? Conversely, how do you know that the retirees are not mostly made up of workers who only worked at the company for a few months or years before they retired? No. 3 works because regardless of what other situations may exist, it is sufficient by itself to raise the possibility of bias on the part of the retiree-respondents.

To those who are getting annoyed with my ramblings, my apologies. I am trying to get my LR from -1, -2 to -0, and it's the little nuances like these that are keeping me from doing that. I figure reasoning things out with those who are willing to indulge me can only help me refine my thought process.

I'm with you on trying to get down to -0. I've getting about -4/5 on the two LR sections combined. Keeping me stuck in the low to mid 170s.

Regarding the question: I didn't notice the response that you responded to before mine. I think that is a pretty good explanation, although I did not notice that when I took the test (a few days ago). I'm really just going off of memory regarding this question. However, I think that simply the fact that none of these are workers who are currently employed there states that they are not representative. The simple fact that every other employee is working and none of them are should be enough to show that they are not representative.

That's my two cents. Take it for what it's worth (probably not much).

User avatar
Cromartie
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:27 pm

Re: Pt 50-60 September Crew. Enter Here

Postby Cromartie » Tue Sep 21, 2010 1:42 am

birdlaw117 wrote:
Cromartie wrote:
birdlaw117 wrote:
Cromartie wrote:LR - 1
Question no. 1 - wtf??? - chose C instead of D. I am still not convinced that retirees do not constitute a representative sample since they were employees at one time or another.


Retirees are not a representative sample for multiple reasons.

1. Retirees finished their careers at this company, therefore the age is not representative.
2. Retirees most likely were not working at an entry-level position.
3. Retirees represent a sample of workers who were treated well enough to continue working there.
4. Retirees represent a sample of workers who are more likely to have worked at the company for a longer period of time.

Hope this helps!


I can go with no. 3. 1, 2 and 4, not so much. For no. 1, how do you know that the company is not comprised of 60-65 year old workers? For no. 2, how do you know that entry-level workers do not constitute an insignificant portion of the company's workforce? For no. 4, how do you know that the company is not made up mostly of employees who have worked at the company for a long time? Conversely, how do you know that the retirees are not mostly made up of workers who only worked at the company for a few months or years before they retired? No. 3 works because regardless of what other situations may exist, it is sufficient by itself to raise the possibility of bias on the part of the retiree-respondents.

To those who are getting annoyed with my ramblings, my apologies. I am trying to get my LR from -1, -2 to -0, and it's the little nuances like these that are keeping me from doing that. I figure reasoning things out with those who are willing to indulge me can only help me refine my thought process.

I'm with you on trying to get down to -0. I've getting about -4/5 on the two LR sections combined. Keeping me stuck in the low to mid 170s.

Regarding the question: I didn't notice the response that you responded to before mine. I think that is a pretty good explanation, although I did not notice that when I took the test (a few days ago). I'm really just going off of memory regarding this question. However, I think that simply the fact that none of these are workers who are currently employed there states that they are not representative. The simple fact that every other employee is working and none of them are should be enough to show that they are not representative.

That's my two cents. Take it for what it's worth (probably not much).


No, you actually make a very good point. Would you care to take a stab at my question regading LR2 no. 4? Maybe you can point something out that I'm missing. I really think that of all the sections, LR is the toughest to get a -0 in. There just always seems to be 1 or 2 questions out of the 50 or so that inevitably trip me up, and it's usually because of some ambiguous nuance that could be interpreted in 2 or more ways.

User avatar
birdlaw117
Posts: 2167
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:19 am

Re: Pt 50-60 September Crew. Enter Here

Postby birdlaw117 » Tue Sep 21, 2010 1:58 am

Cromartie wrote:LR 2 - 1
No. 4, chose E instead of D. Still not convinced about this one either. The reason I picked E is that it would appear that Ray has presupposed that only his interpretation/conclusion is valid.


Okay, so I always find the "presumes the truth of the claim...etc" answers to be tricky. Obviously the argument is claiming something to be true (by definition). The one note I would make about these answers is that in the 20-25 PTs I have taken, there has been 1 LR question where this was the correct answer. However, in this case it seems to me that Ray is coming to a conclusion that Cynthia is mistaken, not presuming that she is mistaken to prove his point. Subtle difference, and quite frankly I think the biggest reason I never considered E was because that has rarely been the correct answer when given as an option in my experience.

The reasoning for D is stronger than the reasoning against E. This is just an answer where you can turn it into a "Weaken" question. Ray's claim basically states that there is a reason for the trunk popping open, but that reason is NOT that Cynthia hit a pothole. Therefore, if you hold that there could be more than one reason for the opening of the trunk to be true, it would weaken Ray's claim that hitting the pothole could not be the cause.

I'm not sure if that was the best explanation (it's almost 1 here, so who knows), so let me know if you have any other questions. I'll be on here for probably just a little bit longer.

Regarding the difficulty of getting a -0 on LR. I have never gotten a -0 for the test as a whole. I've had -0 sections, but never two of them on the same test. As opposed to the many -0s on LG. Although, I struggle with RC (which is frustrating), so I find that equally difficult to get a -0.

User avatar
Cromartie
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:27 pm

Re: Pt 50-60 September Crew. Enter Here

Postby Cromartie » Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:07 am

birdlaw117 wrote:
Cromartie wrote:LR 2 - 1
No. 4, chose E instead of D. Still not convinced about this one either. The reason I picked E is that it would appear that Ray has presupposed that only his interpretation/conclusion is valid.


Okay, so I always find the "presumes the truth of the claim...etc" answers to be tricky. Obviously the argument is claiming something to be true (by definition). The one note I would make about these answers is that in the 20-25 PTs I have taken, there has been 1 LR question where this was the correct answer. However, in this case it seems to me that Ray is coming to a conclusion that Cynthia is mistaken, not presuming that she is mistaken to prove his point. Subtle difference, and quite frankly I think the biggest reason I never considered E was because that has rarely been the correct answer when given as an option in my experience.

The reasoning for D is stronger than the reasoning against E. This is just an answer where you can turn it into a "Weaken" question. Ray's claim basically states that there is a reason for the trunk popping open, but that reason is NOT that Cynthia hit a pothole. Therefore, if you hold that there could be more than one reason for the opening of the trunk to be true, it would weaken Ray's claim that hitting the pothole could not be the cause.

I'm not sure if that was the best explanation (it's almost 1 here, so who knows), so let me know if you have any other questions. I'll be on here for probably just a little bit longer.

Regarding the difficulty of getting a -0 on LR. I have never gotten a -0 for the test as a whole. I've had -0 sections, but never two of them on the same test. As opposed to the many -0s on LG. Although, I struggle with RC (which is frustrating), so I find that equally difficult to get a -0.


Copied and pasted from one of my previous posts. How would you rebut my argument below?

Any thoughts on LR2 no. 4? I chose E instead of D. I eliminated D because Ray is not saying that there is only one possible cause for the trunk's popping open. In fact, he does not suggest any cause at all. He simply says that contrary to and regardless of what Cynthia says, the trunk's opening could not have been due to the car hitting a pothole. This appears to be more in line with E rather than D. To further support my contention, let's try negating D and say that Ray acknowledges that the popping of the trunk could have been caused by many different things. Even if this were true, Ray's argument still stands. For instance, Ray could say that a gnome hiding in the trunk could have popped it open on one of the previous occasions, a spring/locking mechanism could have snapped on another occasion, etc. And then, he could claim that this time around, it was the gnome or the spring, or some other thing that caused the trunk to pop open, just not the pothole. Anything but the pothole. So, he successfully denies Cynthia's claim while at the same time acknowledging that the event could have been caused by any of a number of different things.

Finally, if I were to simplify Ray's argument, it would run something like this.

Ray: Cynthia's car hitting the pothole was not the cause of her car's trunk popping open. Me: How do you know this?
Ray: Because something else must have caused her car's trunk to pop open.
Me: How do you know this?
Ray: Because several times in the past, her car's trunk popped open even when her car didn't hit a pothole, so something else must have caused her car to pop open then; and if something else caused her car's trunk to pop open then, something else (and not the pothole) must have caused it to open this time.
Me: But the trunk popped open at the exact time the car hit the pothole.
Ray: It wasn't the pothole. It was something else.

And with that, I am off to sleep :)
Last edited by Cromartie on Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
birdlaw117
Posts: 2167
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:19 am

Re: Pt 50-60 September Crew. Enter Here

Postby birdlaw117 » Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:25 am

Cromartie wrote:
birdlaw117 wrote:
Cromartie wrote:LR 2 - 1
No. 4, chose E instead of D. Still not convinced about this one either. The reason I picked E is that it would appear that Ray has presupposed that only his interpretation/conclusion is valid.


Okay, so I always find the "presumes the truth of the claim...etc" answers to be tricky. Obviously the argument is claiming something to be true (by definition). The one note I would make about these answers is that in the 20-25 PTs I have taken, there has been 1 LR question where this was the correct answer. However, in this case it seems to me that Ray is coming to a conclusion that Cynthia is mistaken, not presuming that she is mistaken to prove his point. Subtle difference, and quite frankly I think the biggest reason I never considered E was because that has rarely been the correct answer when given as an option in my experience.

The reasoning for D is stronger than the reasoning against E. This is just an answer where you can turn it into a "Weaken" question. Ray's claim basically states that there is a reason for the trunk popping open, but that reason is NOT that Cynthia hit a pothole. Therefore, if you hold that there could be more than one reason for the opening of the trunk to be true, it would weaken Ray's claim that hitting the pothole could not be the cause.

I'm not sure if that was the best explanation (it's almost 1 here, so who knows), so let me know if you have any other questions. I'll be on here for probably just a little bit longer.

Regarding the difficulty of getting a -0 on LR. I have never gotten a -0 for the test as a whole. I've had -0 sections, but never two of them on the same test. As opposed to the many -0s on LG. Although, I struggle with RC (which is frustrating), so I find that equally difficult to get a -0.


Copied and pasted from one of my previous posts. How would you rebut my argument below?

Any thoughts on LR2 no. 4? I chose E instead of D. I eliminated D because Ray is not saying that there is only one possible cause for the trunk's popping open. In fact, he does not suggest any cause at all. He simply says that contrary to and regardless of what Cynthia says, the trunk's opening could not have been due to the car hitting a pothole. This appears to be more in line with E rather than D. To further support my contention, let's try negating D and say that Ray acknowledges that the popping of the trunk could have been caused by many different things. Even if this were true, Ray's argument still stands. For instance, Ray could say that a gnome hiding in the trunk could have popped it open on one of the previous occasions, a spring/locking mechanism could have snapped on another occasion, etc. And then, he could claim that this time around, it was the gnome or the spring, or some other thing that caused the trunk to pop open, and not the pothole. So, he successfully denies Cynthia's claim while at the same time acknowledging that the event could have been caused by any of a number of different things.


Oh man, it's getting late, so I'm not sure how well I can explain this. Basically what it came down to for me was that Ray's claim cites evidence of past events to add insight into a current event. This would imply that he believes the cause is the same, because otherwise the evidence is irrelevant. As a result, he must believe that the trunk popped open for the same reason this time, when it did hit a pothole, as it did when it did not hit a pothole. This means that introducing a second explanation to the trunk popping open would weaken his argument.

That's about the best I can do in my current state. Feel free to PM me or simply respond to this and I'll get back to you as quickly as I can. I'm probably going to have to ask for your take on a few questions because from the looks of things we approach things in very different ways, which is a good thing when trying to go from -2 to -0. Take it easy.

DreamShake
Posts: 366
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:03 pm

Re: Pt 50-60 September Crew. Enter Here

Postby DreamShake » Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:58 am

Cromartie wrote:
DreamShake wrote:Just wrapped up PT 53; got -1 for a 180!! I was kind of unnerved by the last game, though...it took all of about 15 minutes to finish (lucky I finished the first 3 quickly). Anybody have any suggestions on how best to set it up?? I organized it like a grouping game, with the people (MNOPST) as the groups, and the order of finish/groups as two variables. In hindsight, maybe setting it up in the order of finish would've been smarter :\


I started my templates off with the order of finish, which only has 2 possible alternatives: F > G > H or G > H > F. From this point, I just plugged in the rest of the rules/conditions and set up my templates.


Oh, wow. I feel dumb for not realizing it could be set up in templates, haha.


I also took PT 54 yesterday...in #1, the sample is not representative because it doesn't take into account current/previous employees who haven't/didn't retire from the company. All the people who might've hated the company probably self-selected out of retiring there and went to different jobs.

For #4, "E" is claiming that Ray is making a circular argument. In reality, he's not--he bases his claim on the fact that a pothole never caused the trunk to pop open in the past. Ray: "The trunk popping open has always been caused by something other than a pothole, so a pothole can never cause the trunk to pop open in the future." I forget the name of this type of logical fallacy, but he's basically inferring that something in the past must continue to be true. E is incorrect because it completely ignores the premise of his argument--he's not making a circular argument, he's just making a bad argument based on projecting that past trends will continue in the future.

FWIW, I thought #14 on section 2 of LR was complete BS (I think C and D could both be right, even if D is logically prior to C). Like you said, there always seems to be a couple ambiguous questions that don't make sense to a given individual.

Sandro
Posts: 2526
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:12 am

Re: Pt 50-60 September Crew. Enter Here

Postby Sandro » Tue Sep 21, 2010 12:17 pm

PT 50 in a few hours! Wish me luck. Im shooting for a 170.

User avatar
Cromartie
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:27 pm

Re: Pt 50-60 September Crew. Enter Here

Postby Cromartie » Tue Sep 21, 2010 12:21 pm

DreamShake wrote:
Cromartie wrote:
DreamShake wrote:Just wrapped up PT 53; got -1 for a 180!! I was kind of unnerved by the last game, though...it took all of about 15 minutes to finish (lucky I finished the first 3 quickly). Anybody have any suggestions on how best to set it up?? I organized it like a grouping game, with the people (MNOPST) as the groups, and the order of finish/groups as two variables. In hindsight, maybe setting it up in the order of finish would've been smarter :\


I started my templates off with the order of finish, which only has 2 possible alternatives: F > G > H or G > H > F. From this point, I just plugged in the rest of the rules/conditions and set up my templates.


Oh, wow. I feel dumb for not realizing it could be set up in templates, haha.


I also took PT 54 yesterday...in #1, the sample is not representative because it doesn't take into account current/previous employees who haven't/didn't retire from the company. All the people who might've hated the company probably self-selected out of retiring there and went to different jobs.

For #4, "E" is claiming that Ray is making a circular argument. In reality, he's not--he bases his claim on the fact that a pothole never caused the trunk to pop open in the past. Ray: "The trunk popping open has always been caused by something other than a pothole, so a pothole can never cause the trunk to pop open in the future." I forget the name of this type of logical fallacy, but he's basically inferring that something in the past must continue to be true. E is incorrect because it completely ignores the premise of his argument--he's not making a circular argument, he's just making a bad argument based on projecting that past trends will continue in the future.

FWIW, I thought #14 on section 2 of LR was complete BS (I think C and D could both be right, even if D is logically prior to C). Like you said, there always seems to be a couple ambiguous questions that don't make sense to a given individual.


I get your point about no. 4. My only problem really with choosing D is that it effectively states that Ray does not provide for the possibility that an event can be caused in many different ways. As I argued before, Ray can concurrently acknowledge that an event can be caused in many different ways and still deny Cynthia's claim. But I guess it's another one of those questions where there really isn't an exceptionally good answer among the choices, so just go with the relatively most decent one.

Yeah, at this point, I've really gotten LR down to a science (figuratively speaking, of course) and I have minimized if not totally eliminated errors resulting from carelessness. So getting that elusive -0 or -1 combined in LR all boils down to me correctly adopting the LSAT test writers' perspective with respect to the ambiguous questions. For the questions where my interpretation diverges from theirs, I can insist that I'm right, and quite possibly may in fact be right, but in the end, it's what they think is right that counts.

By the way, I rechecked my solution to the 4th LG and there are actually 3 possible orders (it was a bit late last night when I posted my response): F > G > H, G > F > H and G > H > F. But yeah, once you've established this, the game becomes significantly simpler to solve.

What was LR2 no. 14 about? I'm currently at work and don't have access to the PT.

am060459
Posts: 609
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:14 am

Re: Pt 50-60 September Crew. Enter Here

Postby am060459 » Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:42 pm

guess retaking was not a good idea...im showing little or no improvement

PT 53

LR -6
AR -3
LR -8
RC -9

75--> 160 (scored the same when i was prepping for June)

User avatar
Blumpbeef
Posts: 3814
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: Pt 50-60 September Crew. Enter Here

Postby Blumpbeef » Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:53 pm

Did 55 last night, or I tried to anyway. I literally fell asleep 12 questions into the first section. When I woke up I missed 4 in a row. On one of them I misread Psychological as Physiological or something like that. Major fail, and a waste of $8. At least now I have some recent sections left over to use as experminetals...


On to 56.

User avatar
Blumpbeef
Posts: 3814
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: Pt 50-60 September Crew. Enter Here

Postby Blumpbeef » Tue Sep 21, 2010 7:01 pm

56

The Good News: Section I was LG, and this is the first time I had ever completely finished a timed LG section.
The Bad News: I missed 5 problems, which is what I would have gotten if I had skipped a game anyway, but still, it is progress, and it is better than the -13 I got when attempting all sections on SuperPreb B.

I decided to try throwing in a bit of endurance by not having any breaks between the first 3 sections, and then only a 2 minute break before section 4.

II) LR -1
III) LR -3
IV) RC -9

I don't remember ever missing more than maybe 3 on an RC(I didn't even get to read the last passage), and the -3 on the second LR is kind of concerning as well. Did I go overboard with the endurance thing or do you guys think I'm going to have some the same type of trouble towards the end of a real test? I have so far done my PTs with 2 sections, a 15 minute break and then the last 2 sections.

82|165 meh

Hedwig
Posts: 835
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:56 am

Re: Pt 50-60 September Crew. Enter Here

Postby Hedwig » Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:55 pm

PT 55 tomorrow! I can't believe I'm so far up in the PTs. Only 6 left - um, that's kind of a scary thought, argh. I still have lots of sections left that I can take, I should go home tomorrow (am house sitting) and grab a book and do more section work.


OKAY. Hmm. I just sorted out my schedule for PTs.

Friday, September 24th: PT 55
Sunday, September 26th: PT 56
Wednesday, September 29th: PT 57
Friday, October 1st: PT 58
Sunday, October 3rd: PT 59
Wednesday, October 6th: PT 60

User avatar
Adjudicator
Posts: 1108
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:18 am

Re: Pt 50-60 September Crew. Enter Here

Postby Adjudicator » Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:03 pm

Good luck on #55, eit. I just did that one a couple days ago. I got a 178, see if you can beat me!

kpuc
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:28 pm

Re: Pt 50-60 September Crew. Enter Here

Postby kpuc » Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:11 pm

Let me just write down my schedule, so that I know I haven't messed my timeline up.

Sept. 23rd - PT 55

Sept. 26th - PT 56

Sept. 29th - PT 57

Sept. 31st - PT 58

October 3rd - PT 59

Oct. 6th - PT 60

I also just ordered the "Next 10 LSATs" so that I will have plenty of exercises.

Sandro
Posts: 2526
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:12 am

Re: Pt 50-60 September Crew. Enter Here

Postby Sandro » Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:14 pm

Just took the second LR section on PT 54 using the first 10, then 25-20, then 11-19 technique. Got to all problems and only missed 2. Interesting idea, will try it on my next PT. I also took pT 50 earlier today and this section seemed to go a lot easier, I definitely will be incorporating warmup into my routine.

User avatar
Cromartie
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:27 pm

Re: Pt 50-60 September Crew. Enter Here

Postby Cromartie » Wed Sep 22, 2010 12:04 am

eit wrote:PT 55 tomorrow! I can't believe I'm so far up in the PTs. Only 6 left - um, that's kind of a scary thought, argh. I still have lots of sections left that I can take, I should go home tomorrow (am house sitting) and grab a book and do more section work.


OKAY. Hmm. I just sorted out my schedule for PTs.

Friday, September 24th: PT 55
Sunday, September 26th: PT 56
Wednesday, September 29th: PT 57
Friday, October 1st: PT 58
Sunday, October 3rd: PT 59
Wednesday, October 6th: PT 60


I'm taking this PT tomorrow night after work. Good luck to us!

By the way... I see that you've changed your mind about taking PT 60 before PT 59.

User avatar
iamcutdacheck
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 5:23 am

Re: Pt 50-60 September Crew. Enter Here

Postby iamcutdacheck » Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:14 am

Just finished (and currently correcting) PT 50 ...I've came along way from a sub 140 score...

RC:-7 (Last Passage I got 4 wrong)
LR:-4
LG:-8 (Still haven't finished LGB yet, will pound it out this week)
LR:-3

Correcting PT 50 tonight and tommrow, Finishing LGB from chapter 5 onward this week ...PT 51 Thursday with PT 52 to follow on Saturday :D

User avatar
aesis
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:26 pm

Re: Pt 50-60 September Crew. Enter Here

Postby aesis » Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:19 am

*frustration*
Just finished PT 52.
LR -5 (ahhhhh)
LG -0
LR -2
RC -3
90 raw
171 scaled

I seem to really love the number 90. (Past four tests have been 90).
A quick look at the ones I missed could be easily remedied if not for mind lapses / more careful reading, and a little bit better judgment between contenders.

Oh well. I was hoping to hit 94 raw again tonight. Time to finally review LRB like I've been telling myself to.

DreamShake
Posts: 366
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:03 pm

Re: Pt 50-60 September Crew. Enter Here

Postby DreamShake » Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:09 pm

Just wrapped up PT 55...kind of blah. 97/100=178. -1 RC, -0 LR, -2 LG. Pleasantly surprised by my score, since I woke up and tested 3 hours earlier than normal, but annoyed at myself for missing the last two questions on LG (and the test) out of a rush to finish and check my answers. The last LG was a little quirky till I went back to check my mistakes, at which point I had one of those little "Oh...duh." moments.


Also,

Cromartie wrote:What was LR2 no. 14 about? I'm currently at work and don't have access to the PT.


It was the question about some radar dish having two properties to work equally well on all frequencies. The stimulus is a researcher saying that the theory requiring the two properties is wrong because an experimental dish with those two properties failed. C says the argument is flawed b/c it concludes a claim is false merely b/c there is insufficient evidence it's true. D says it's flawed b/c it interprets an assertion that some conditions are necessary as asserting that they are sufficient. I think either one could realistically be credited, but I'm a little more conscientious now similar question types...looking for the answer testmakers want, as opposed to...well, any answer that is correct.

User avatar
catsparka
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 4:50 pm

Re: Pt 50-60 September Crew. Enter Here

Postby catsparka » Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:50 pm

I just finished 53 today. Got -0 on the first two sections, but -3 on the second LR section and -4 on the RC. :<

I'm not fully convinced by one of the questions in the RC section. For the last passage (the one about strawberries and pests) the answer to Q21 is D, but I wrote B. I guess I can kind of see why D would be the correct answer, but I still think a case might be made for B as well. Can anyone help me out in understanding why B is wrong?

This is only my second post-50 PT. I feel like the RC sections have definitely gotten harder! And for some reason, many of the LR questions seem trickier also.

User avatar
DrackedaryMaster
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 5:11 pm

Re: Pt 50-60 September Crew. Enter Here

Postby DrackedaryMaster » Wed Sep 22, 2010 5:14 pm

A local drackedary expert was viciously attacked last night after venturing into the third passage section of PT59. Witnesses said an individual of Japanese complexion approached the drackedary player and attempted to smash his head with what appeared to be some kind of human sculpture. The victim was rushed to the local LSAC hospital where he was later stabilized, but not after losing vital life points.

Seriously, though, the difference in difficulty between the first two/last two RC’s on PT59 is one of the largest gaps I’ve noticed in 40+ tests. You can sleepwalk your way through the first two which are straight-forward. The third one, however, is pure evil, and the Ultimatum one isn’t that better. I didn’t really feel like I was answering RC questions in these last two passages and it killed what small chance I had of getting to the 170’s on this PT thanks to the generous curve. Ended up average. 166 (-2LG, -5LR1, -4LR2, -8!!!FMLRC, all in the LAST two passages). This was not fatigue, this was a downright hit job!

I already did PT60 (167 -4LR-5LR-3LG-3RC), and I don’t remember which PT has the notorious Chinese talk story, but I’m literally starting to have nightmares with this scenario.

Hopefully PT58 will be better (yep, going backwards for awhile).

DreamShake
Posts: 366
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:03 pm

Re: Pt 50-60 September Crew. Enter Here

Postby DreamShake » Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:33 pm

DrackedaryMaster wrote:I already did PT60 (167 -4LR-5LR-3LG-3RC), and I don’t remember which PT has the notorious Chinese talk story, but I’m literally starting to have nightmares with this scenario.


I just did PT 55, which has a passage about a Chinese talk-story author...it's not too bad. I actually thought the first passage in the section was the worst (read: most boring). The last one is actually semi-interesting, though!

edit: grammar foul

am060459
Posts: 609
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:14 am

Re: Pt 50-60 September Crew. Enter Here

Postby am060459 » Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:21 pm

doing some timed sections, mostly LR, tomorrow from older PTs (early 20s).

PT 54 friday
PT 55 saturday

good luck all




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot], whodareswins and 1 guest