target score: 176

amkid100
Posts: 254
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:02 pm

target score: 176

Postby amkid100 » Thu Aug 26, 2010 12:18 am

do you think that -4 will more or less guarantee at least a 176? i don't think i can get much more accurate than that. here are the scales:

http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/ls ... rsion.html

User avatar
Hannibal
Posts: 2213
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm

Re: target score: 176

Postby Hannibal » Thu Aug 26, 2010 12:22 am

I don't think I've seen a test that has a harsher curve than -4 = 176.

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

Re: target score: 176

Postby Cromartie » Thu Aug 26, 2010 12:26 am

Hannibal wrote:I don't think I've seen a test that has a harsher curve than -4 = 176.


This is still fresh in my mind as I just took the PT this past Sunday. PT 48: -4 = 175. I was so pissed with the curve that I created a thread just to express my disgust.

amkid100
Posts: 254
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:02 pm

Re: target score: 176

Postby amkid100 » Thu Aug 26, 2010 12:29 am

Cromartie wrote:
Hannibal wrote:I don't think I've seen a test that has a harsher curve than -4 = 176.


This is still fresh in my mind as I just took the PT this past Sunday. PT 48: -4 = 175. I was so pissed with the curve that I created a thread just to express my disgust.


is that some sort of cosmic joke?

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

Re: target score: 176

Postby Adjudicator » Thu Aug 26, 2010 12:31 am

-4 = 175? How is that even possible?? :x

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

Re: target score: 176

Postby Cromartie » Thu Aug 26, 2010 12:32 am

Adjudicator wrote:-4 = 175? How is that even possible?? :x


Well, the overall curve for the test was -8. Don't have the slightest clue how that happened. Granted the LG section was easier than in most PT's, the LR and RC sections were filled with subtleties and misdirections, making them pretty challenging.

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

Re: target score: 176

Postby Adjudicator » Thu Aug 26, 2010 12:36 am

Cromartie wrote:
Adjudicator wrote:-4 = 175? How is that even possible?? :x


Well, the overall curve for the test was -8. Don't have the slightest clue how that happened. Granted the LG section was easier than in most PT's, the LR and RC sections were filled with subtleties and misdirections, making them pretty challenging.


I did the LG section from that PT today and I didn't like it; I got -3. So I would have to have missed no more than 1 on the rest of that test to get a 175?

Outrageous!

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

Re: target score: 176

Postby Cromartie » Thu Aug 26, 2010 12:38 am

Adjudicator wrote:
Cromartie wrote:
Adjudicator wrote:-4 = 175? How is that even possible?? :x


Well, the overall curve for the test was -8. Don't have the slightest clue how that happened. Granted the LG section was easier than in most PT's, the LR and RC sections were filled with subtleties and misdirections, making them pretty challenging.


I did the LG section from that PT today and I didn't like it; I got -3. So I would have to have missed no more than 1 on the rest of that test to get a 175?

Outrageous!


Yup, it sucks. Missed 3 on the last LG (rock bands and folk bands) and 2 on RC. My reward for a -5? 174. I remember taking one of the earlier 40's where a -6 netted me a 176.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests