Thanks guys! I kind of lucked out in LR, but the -0 on both totally killed my motivation to drill LR this weekend lol.

I just did the grouping chapter in the LG bible last night, so I guess I still need to work on getting grouping games down. I finished with 11 minutes to spare and felt sure of my answers, so I think I must have misread a rule or something. I havent gone over my mistakes yet.

PT 45: *Individual timed sections, not done together as a test
LR1: -3
RC: -2
LG: -0
LR2: -1

Raw: 94
Scaled: 177

Yes, this was done over the course of about 4 hours because I was reviewing after each section, so this is definitely NOT the same as a timed PT, nevertheless, feels good to get so many right! This was honestly a pretty easy PT, I would have loved to of had this one. LR had a couple of tricky ones but nothing too bad, the LG was a complete joke and the RC was actually pretty interesting and was easy to see the purpose of each passage.

Good job.

Im about to go start my 3rd RC today.
Livin the life.

Way to go!

A 177 50+ days before the exam is freaking awesome.

this goes for shifty_eyed as well.

Thank you, loving the positive reinforcement in this thread! Like I said, it was individual sections, so definitely easier than a regular PT, but regardless, I feel very comfortable with the material. Calling it good for the day, gotta head to work in an hour. I think tomorrow will be strengthen/weaken drilling with a timed RC section. Gonna eventually start doing timed PT from 52+. Hope everyone is having a great weekend. It's beautiful here in Seattle today, good thing I get to go into work and sit in front of a damn computer screen all day lol :/. Oh well, just 50 days or so, lets fucking do this!

Goddamn, how did you guys do on PT 55? That first LR kicked the shit out of me, the last game was a pain in the ass, RC was a bitch (missed 3 in the last section, spent way too much time talk-story), I generally felt rushed through out the whole test, and on top of that a -9 curve. Given, I have mild bronchitis right now (no excuses, play like a champion), but still this PT put a nice dent in the wave I was riding from 169 on PT56.




Also, I was browsing some older threads discussing PTs (trying to see if anyone else shit the bed on 55), and a lot of people seemed to say they were counting guessed answers towards their score on a practice test. I don't count any answer choice where I completely guessed, since the fact I managed to get hit a 1 in 5 guess is pretty meaningless in terms of my progress. How do you guys count guesses? I could see how it would be good for confidence if you did manage a guess or two, but then you're score isn't really indicative of how you did, since it is after all, a guess.




But yeah, fuck PT55. And fuck any LG with buses.

I haven't done PT55 yet.

I always count my guesses, but I make sure to review them even if they were right. There's always some reason why I decide to pick one over the other, so wouldn't say they are complete guesses. The only time something would be a complete guess would be on a logic game that I couldn't get or if I just ran out of time. I guess I wouldn't count that.

Yeah that's what I mean. If you picked an answer, but were less than 100% sure about it, yeah I'd count that.

Just took PT55 as my first full, timed test. Although I was happy with just being able to finish all the sections on time (started off with huge timing issues), the last game killed me, and so did RC.

LG1: -5
RC: -8 (butchered talk-story)
LG2: -4
LG: -6 (half were on the bus game, that last rule fucked me up)

Scaled: 160

Isn't great, but for my first timed test, I'm happy with it. Hopefully it's only up from here. Glad I wasn't the only one who thought it was difficult, though.

Yeah, for sure. I feel good knowing that I don't have a whole lot I need to improve on, but still, last summer I was PTing at 175-176 and pretty much bombed test day. I'm really hoping I can hit at least a few 180s before the day this time.

What are you PTing at now?

I took my first PT a couple of days ago since last summer and thought I scored a 174 but I actually counted an extra one wrong so it was a 175 (-8 LR/-1 RC - phew that's a friendly curve). I think the main issue was actually sloppiness as I finished both LR sections in about 25 mins. each so I definitely have plenty more time to be more careful. Especially after seeing the high 170s posted by people in this thread I really want to go take more PTs! But I decided I want to try to work through the LR bible first and see if that helps me any before wasting any more PTs.

I've heard that LG is easier in the more recent PTs; are there any general changes in difficulty surrounding LR or RC also?

52 today.

Exp LG: -5
LR: -2
LG: -2
LR: -2
RC: -2

174

Games seemed tougher than usual. I think my poor showing in the experimental section was due to not being warmed up. As for the scored section, I felt like I was running through tons of hypos in game 2 (museum field trip) and cost me time. Other than that, I couldn't make good sense out of the final rule in game 4, and dropped two questions.

Almost none of the 50/50s I had in LR went my way, so the -4 total seems like a worst-case scenario. I know I messed one up because I didn't catch a distinction between flash pasteurization and intense pasteurization. Derp. I have no idea what I was thinking on the Homer/Iliad and Odyssey.

RC: I had a tough time with the first passage about the Senegalese author, but recovered nicely and finished early. I have a hard time with the arts/humanities passages. Any ideas on what I can do to work on these? Please don't say read art reviews....

Overall, I feel like I underachieved on this one, but I guess I'm happy that I still scored well. I just hope re-taking these tests isn't completely killing the validity of them.

@crowing:

I think that the LG has gotten easier, to an extent. There's still a "gimme" game in every section, but there doesn't seem to be one game that's way harder or trickier than the others. There are exceptions, of course (i.e. Stained glass and dinosaurs).

I feel that RC has gotten much more difficult, and asks you many more inference-type questions as opposed to just pure recall. Maybe that's just me, though. LR seems to be harder, too. Kinda tough to describe.

Not discounting you because it's all personal preference, but I think most people feel new LR is easier than old. Not sure about lg and rc to answer your original question crowig

From what I see, LR is very consistent now, not too difficult, and the parallel Q's arent that difficult, just take a while to do them. The LG is pretty easy as long as you knock that first one out if 5-6 minutes and the second in 6-8 you are good for the more plug n chug game. The RC is difficult, the purpose of the passage is hidden a little better and more transition words.

Ok, Q for all of you:

Are necessary conditionals routinely introduced with "must" or "is necessary"? I found a few statements where that seemed to be the case but can I consider that a rule? Just wondering, since the LG Bible specifically mentioned terms that tip you off to a necessary conditional and those terms weren't included on that list.

Well I took my first timed practice test since Mid Dec today and the results were....bleh.

PT 52

LR1: -5 Need to review badly
LR2: -3
LG: -3 Complete suprise. I have not missed more than 1 on LG since my diagnostic.
RC: -2 What I have been working on lately cause before it was my worst section

Raw: 86 or something like that (my test is not with me)
Scaled: 168

So not a horrible score for having done pretty much nothing for four months. I am not going to dwell on it ....I am going to try not to dwell.

LR: I have not looked at LR at all which is a mistake obviously. Before my hiatus I was at around -1 or -2 per section so I am confident I can get back there with some note review and drilling

RC: The only thing I have been working on. I have been drilling from sections I bought from Cambridge LSAT and read MLSAT's book. So hopefully I can keep up the good work

LG: Sooo ashamed I miss diagramed a rule in two games which accounted for the misses. I am really going to chalk this up as being out of practice. I will drill some before my next pt and I am sure I will be fine.

So yea nothing to brag about and def not up to the par that many of you have posted today but I will get there. Just need to get back in shape

Im pretty sure the PS bible says that their list is not exhaustive.

I've seen in PTs the necessary condition be prefaced with "only", "if and only if", "without", etc...

Basically, you need to be looking at the terms that are the ones that could occur on their own. If the sufficient condition occurs, then the necessary condition invariably occurs.

So, if a condition can occur on its own without producing the alternate condition, then it is most likely the necessary condition.

Yeah that test wrecked my shit. You're not alone. We'll come back stronger!

That game destroyed me. Ouch.

Just took the PT55 you have all been talking about:

LG: -3
LR1: -0
LR2: -0
RC: -3 (damn Kingston passage took me for -3)

174

I really need to polish up my LG, as it has been a while. This LG section was strange though, for sure.
Really happy with this result though! I am glad to see a lot wrong in LG as opposed to LR, since I feel like LG is just a matter of some more effort

Nice work, great job on the LR! Did some strengthen/weaken drilling today and the RC section from PT 51 today. Gonna start doing timed PTs from 52+ starting tomorrow probably... exciting!