Bombed PT, now what? October 2010 freak out! Forum

[whymeohgodno]

I found #59 horrible and very confidence killing. THat said, I'm blaming it on other factors like the fact that I took it like 20 minutes after an hour and 20 minute test on Roman Society where I basically vomited my brain onto the page (understandably had little brain left for the PT).

For RC, I was getting concerned about the RCs since I went from a typical -0 to -1, to a more typical -2 to -3 or even 4! I decided that rather than re-doing RC (not helpful for me), I would buy the more recent RCs that I hadn't done and do those instead. For me, those were 44, 41, 40, and 39. I did 41 and 40 yesterday, did PT 59 today and scored a -1 on RC, and I COULD have scored a -0 if I hadn't read negative and thought positive (yeah, smart). I think it's just a matter of re-adjusting to the new style.

PT 59 first LR section was BRUTAL.

That was one of the hardest LR sections I've ever taken. The 2 role of a statement questions were difficult and there were at least 1-2 others that was some of the trickiest I've seen.

But then again I'm not too consistent on LR. -0 one day...-4 the next.

[Hedwig]

I found #59 horrible and very confidence killing. THat said, I'm blaming it on other factors like the fact that I took it like 20 minutes after an hour and 20 minute test on Roman Society where I basically vomited my brain onto the page (understandably had little brain left for the PT).

For RC, I was getting concerned about the RCs since I went from a typical -0 to -1, to a more typical -2 to -3 or even 4! I decided that rather than re-doing RC (not helpful for me), I would buy the more recent RCs that I hadn't done and do those instead. For me, those were 44, 41, 40, and 39. I did 41 and 40 yesterday, did PT 59 today and scored a -1 on RC, and I COULD have scored a -0 if I hadn't read negative and thought positive (yeah, smart). I think it's just a matter of re-adjusting to the new style.

PT 59 first LR section was BRUTAL.

That was one of the hardest LR sections I've ever taken. The 2 role of a statement questions were difficult and there were at least 1-2 others that was some of the trickiest I've seen.

But then again I'm not too consistent on LR. -0 one day...-4 the next.

I KNOW OH MY GOD. Haaated it. -4'd it.

[whymeohgodno]

I found #59 horrible and very confidence killing. THat said, I'm blaming it on other factors like the fact that I took it like 20 minutes after an hour and 20 minute test on Roman Society where I basically vomited my brain onto the page (understandably had little brain left for the PT).

For RC, I was getting concerned about the RCs since I went from a typical -0 to -1, to a more typical -2 to -3 or even 4! I decided that rather than re-doing RC (not helpful for me), I would buy the more recent RCs that I hadn't done and do those instead. For me, those were 44, 41, 40, and 39. I did 41 and 40 yesterday, did PT 59 today and scored a -1 on RC, and I COULD have scored a -0 if I hadn't read negative and thought positive (yeah, smart). I think it's just a matter of re-adjusting to the new style.

PT 59 first LR section was BRUTAL.

That was one of the hardest LR sections I've ever taken. The 2 role of a statement questions were difficult and there were at least 1-2 others that was some of the trickiest I've seen.

But then again I'm not too consistent on LR. -0 one day...-4 the next.

I KNOW OH MY GOD. Haaated it. -4'd it.

Hehe that's exactly the score I got. Which questions did you get wrong? I got 7 18 22 25 wrong.

[Hedwig]

16, 18, 24, 25. 25 was a doozy. I sort of see how it's right, but I also am just like WTF.

[adampres]

I'm in a similar boat with LR, ranging from -0 to -4. Any ideas how to tighten that up to at least a solid average of -2? I've found that when I try to anticipate the answer before I read the choices it really helps. Anyone else?

[whymeohgodno]

I'm in a similar boat with LR, ranging from -0 to -4. Any ideas how to tighten that up to at least a solid average of -2? I've found that when I try to anticipate the answer before I read the choices it really helps. Anyone else?

I always anticipate answers except for inference.

It really helps with the time since I usually don't have to refer back to the passage as much.

But sometimes it hurts me because if I'm dead certain that I predicted the right answer but none of the answer choices fit...it throws me off a little.

[minnbills]

16, 18, 24, 25. 25 was a doozy. I sort of see how it's right, but I also am just like WTF.

I went -4 on 59 as well.

18, 20, 22, 25.

It seems that on the newest LR sections I always ace the first 15 or so and then drop a bunch on the backside. But what's weird is that the first questions seem more difficult.

[Blumpbeef]

4 of us missed 18.
3 of us missed 22
3 of us missed 25
2 of us missed 7

There has got to be something wrong with a question when 4 out of 4 people miss it. I went 50/50, but there is obviously something off about the CR if all of us decided not to select it. Same goes for 22.

25 was a gimme for me, but I have a science background so that was probably it. I had prephrased an answer about higher levels of geological activity(heat radiating from inside the earth resulting from the high energy collisions which formed it), but sure enough A said the opposite of what I had prephrased, and then B gave another explanation.

Basically 25 goes like this:

Carbon dioxide makes things hot.
Methane makes things hot.
The sun makes things hot.

There was less sun 3 billion years ago but it was still hot, therefore there must have been more carbon dioxide.

Now weaken it:

The CR is "there was more methane 3 billion years ago".

The logic is simple, but if you didn't already know the science then you would have to struggle through that convoluted passage.

[minnbills]

Actually I put the wrong numbers down. I got 25 right, it was 23 I missed instead.

I was just about to move forward with the wrong answer when I decided to check one last time- I caught the methane part in the stimilus and that brought me to the right answer, part of my "specifics philosophy" I guess.

EDIT: i just figured since methane facilitated the earth heating up, if methane levels were high, then there would not necessarily have to be high CD levels.

[whymeohgodno]

16, 18, 24, 25. 25 was a doozy. I sort of see how it's right, but I also am just like WTF.

25 made sense after careful weeks of examination.

I finally found the answer.

Greenhouse gases mentioned in the passage - methane and carbon dioxide.

Conclusion: Higher carbon dioxide before than current.

Right answer: Higher methane before than current. This weakens because methane=greenhouse gas and thus it could just be higher methane before and not higher carbon dioxide.

SO TRICKY. IT BLEW MY MIND ONCE I FIGURED IT OUT BUT STILL. THIS QUESTION SHOULD BE RANKED AS LIKE AN 8 STAR QUESTION.

[Blumpbeef]

Doing the RCs. First passage was science. Fun. I got -1 on it and finished a minute early. By far my best performance on a comparative reading.

the second was law, which I am also usually pretty good at, but I just don't get #15. C seems better than A. There is no support in the passage that students would learn how to write statutes, but it explicitly states that they would learn how to interpret them, which can reasonably be inferred to mean that they would learn how to look up court decisions on them.

[Blumpbeef]

hmmm... -6 on the RCs. Not good, but I did finish early. I just tried to power through them because I was concerned about my tendency to take too long on it. -3 on the Noguchi passage. 22 was an easy one that I shouldn't have missed. I can also see why I missed 20, so its not too bad. 18 was also not too difficult, I think I might have rushed.

So thats less than a 165 on PT 59, depending on my performance on LR2(which I probably won't bother doing). Definitely not happy about that at all.

[minnbills]

Doing the RCs. First passage was science. Fun. I got -1 on it and finished a minute early. By far my best performance on a comparative reading.

the second was law, which I am also usually pretty good at, but I just don't get #15. C seems better than A. There is no support in the passage that students would learn how to write statutes, but it explicitly states that they would learn how to interpret them, which can reasonably be inferred to mean that they would learn how to look up court decisions on them.

It has to be stated in the passage. I forget where exactly but somewhere in there it mentions that students who would go on to write law in the legislature would benefit from statutory law studies.

[incompetentia]

18 seems to be a doozy on LR1 in 59. I missed 18 - also missed 14 but managed only a -2 on that section.

It's clear why 18's correct choice is what it is, but ugh in the middle to the end of a section when you're starting to worry about the clock and you haven't had a break in an hour and a half