PT 56: Hard, kooky

AshtonB
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:59 pm

PT 56: Hard, kooky

Postby AshtonB » Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:54 pm

LG: -2
LR1: 0
LR2: -8(!!!)
RC: -7

Still ended up with a 165. Still...anyone else think the second half of the test was unusually hard? I made a LOT of careless mistakes in the second LG portion, but even so, some of those questions were just brutal. And the RC section was hardly a cakewalk, either.

User avatar
niederbomb
Posts: 962
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: PT 56: Hard, kooky

Postby niederbomb » Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:51 pm

Haha...This test really wasn't a cakewalk.

The LG on this test was tricky, but the RC was pretty easy aside from the Cakewalk passage. I missed -2 on the first LR section, and -0 on the second, so I don't really get your breakdown.

AshtonB
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:59 pm

Re: PT 56: Hard, kooky

Postby AshtonB » Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:55 pm

niederbomb wrote:Haha...This test really wasn't a cakewalk.

The LG on this test was tricky, but the RC was pretty easy aside from the Cakewalk passage. I missed -2 on the first LR section, and -0 on the second, so I don't really get your breakdown.


Are you thinking of a different PT? There was no literal cakewalk passage. That was an earlier PT (54?)

User avatar
niederbomb
Posts: 962
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: PT 56: Hard, kooky

Postby niederbomb » Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:57 pm

You're right...sorry I had them all mixed up in my review PDF file.

But the comments about LG and LR on that test still stand.

User avatar
FlanAl
Posts: 1474
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:53 pm

Re: PT 56: Hard, kooky

Postby FlanAl » Tue Dec 07, 2010 12:01 am

This PT is what ruined my confidence a few days before the october test. I cancelled my score. I hate this PT.

SchopenhauerFTW
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:22 pm

Re: .

Postby SchopenhauerFTW » Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:11 am

.
Last edited by SchopenhauerFTW on Mon Dec 10, 2012 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
paulshortys10
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 7:03 pm

Re: PT 56: Hard, kooky

Postby paulshortys10 » Tue Dec 07, 2010 2:43 am

The Rc wasnt bad...LG I missed 4 which is rare.

First lr I fuvked up terribly with a -11..I managed a 160..

165 on the very next one though:)




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], ConLaw2017 and 9 guests