Thanks, hyakku. There were so many times when I had a great prephrase and I almost LOL'd at the incorrect responses. When I hear people say that the testmakers put in "traps", or that there are always two tempting answer choices - I basically laugh (even though it's what I used to say, all the time). Their incorrect answer choices are so transparent; once you start understanding what the question is really asking, as it relates to what you really need to do to/say about the argument, it is clear as day which one is right.
I also benefitted from the strategy of focusing on the wrong answers (on RC) as much as the right ones; there was a moment where I knew that 3 were clearly wrong, one seemed like it could be right - even though I didn't know it to be so (it was a structure question) - and then the last one wasn't clearly wrong, but I could see that it was wrong for good reason; so I chose the one that wasn't wrong as, again, it's not about finding a 100% correct answer choice - it's about finding the most correct answer choice. If 4 are obviously wrong, then the fifth must be the most correct - if it is not obviously wrong!
Whew, that was a mouthful. I just wanted to stress the importance of checking all AC's.
Dude, you can't be too dedicated; if that energy is turning to anxiety, it can be an impediment - but you would just need to refocus that into productive behaviors. It was only one bad section, don't sweat it; why do you think you did so poorly, though? Did you do all of the same behaviors (e.g. cover answer choices, come up with a good prephrase, eliminate incorrect AC's by crossing out the words that make it incorrect)?
But yeah, there are ups and downs; look at mine:
10/08/11 - PT 46 - LR1: -1, LR2: -2, RC: -9, LG: -0, LRexp: -5, 87/099, 167
10/12/11 - PT 47 - LR1: -2, LR2-11, RC: -2, LG: -0, LRexp: -5, 86/101, 166
10/15/11 - PT 48 - LR1: -6, LR2: -2, RC: -5, LG: -0, LGexp: -4, 88/101, 166
10/19/11 - PT 49 - LR1: -7, LR2: -2, RC: -7, LG: -1, RCexp: -9, 83/100, 164
10/23/11 - PT 50 - LR1: -5, LR2: -3, RC: -7, LG: -4, LRexp: -10, 81/100, 163
10/26/11 - PT 51 - LR1: -4, LR2: -6, RC: -4, LG: -1, LGexp: -3, 85/100, 167
10/29/11 - PT 52 - LR1: -4, LR2: -0, RC: -2, LG: -0, RCexp: -6, 93/99, 174
I was like, yay! I'm so smart! after I got -12. Then I was like, WTF - I missed 11 on one LR?!?! Then I did ok, but then I regressed back to missing 18. Then I did even worse and missed 19; that did not feel good! Then I went back to a good score, -15, and broke through the wall with a -6. This shit ain't checkers! The thing is this: we don't want to walk into the test with a 175 average because it does anything for us, we want to have mastered the test - which coincides with having a 175 average.
It doesn't matter what I do on any given section or test; all that matters is that I find the best method, approach, technique, and tactic for each section - and for the whole test. That's why I was willing to notate for so long; I figured I would eventually get to the point where I could finish the whole passage. After I saw that it wasn't going to happen, I modified my approach.
The biggest thing is that we find what will work best for us on test day; that doesn't mean we should reinvent the wheel and dismiss what everyone else does. We should just consider everything, try it all, and figure out what works best for us.
I can guarantee, as I foolishly did earlier on the thread - haha, that I will go into the December test having gotten a 180 on a PT. The test is learnable and if you are able to put in the necessary time, and are willing to learn it the "right way", you will learn it.
I have a lot of learning to do before my LR is consistently -2 (combined), I have a lot of learning (through repetition) until I haven't missed an LG in the last 100 games, and I have a lot of learning before I am consistently missing less than 2 on RC.
Dude, it's inside of us; we just have to put all the bs aside and do what it takes to bring it out. With people like hyakku and all of the other good posters, there is nothing stopping us!