## target score: 176

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
amkid100

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

### target score: 176

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

Hannibal

Posts: 2211
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm

### Re: target score: 176

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

Cromartie

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

### Re: target score: 176

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

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?

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

### Re: target score: 176

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

Cromartie

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

### Re: target score: 176

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

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.

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

### Re: target score: 176

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

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!

Cromartie

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

### Re: target score: 176

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

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.