## PT 65 discussion

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

Posts: 161
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 11:29 pm

### Re: PT 65 discussion

Until today my most recent was 61 so I thought I'd give this a whirl as it's recent. Crushed my confidence and left me feeling physically sick and weak. Still reeling a bit. Tomorrow needs to be a complete non-LSAT...

VasaVasori

Posts: 571
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:36 pm

### .

.
Last edited by VasaVasori on Sat May 02, 2015 10:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

TheColonel

Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:44 pm

### Re: PT 65 discussion

Taus11 wrote:For LR question #26 Section 4, what made you guys pick (E) over (C)? I thought this was a deceptively tricky question. I see why (E) works, and I debated for like two minutes when I was taking it, but how would you eliminate (C)? I am guessing it's because the argument doesn't do a "comparison between the parties," rather just states that it's the best. Does qualifying it as the best not count as a comparison? Thanks. Also the RC was indeed terrible. Hoping for an easier RC. I also need to stop missing easy identification questions that has clear answers in the text due to being a lazy fuck to check the text. I have noticed that the newer RC makes you look at the text more than before though. Ugh.

-1 on each LR, -0 on LG, and then -5 on RC.
I hate RC with a passion

Just to add my 2 cents. Like others, I don't think C is a flaw. I'm thinking it is a comparison because how can you make a superlative statement without necessarily comparing to others? Additionally, how would comparing the parties to a competition not be a legitimate way of predicting the outcome of an event? I was expecting parts/whole fallacy like everyone else, but E seemed pretty good to me.

One thing that I learned that helped me with flaw questions is that the correct answer has to both be a flaw and be present in the argument. You can usually eliminate the majority of the ACs with that two pronged attack.

On the positive, you're clearly stronger in LR which is the majority of the test. So you have the hard stuff down AND if there is a monster of an RC section then it'll likely be compensated with a big juicy curve, easy games, or both like in this PT.

Taus11

Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:05 am

### Re: PT 65 discussion

TheColonel wrote:
Taus11 wrote:For LR question #26 Section 4, what made you guys pick (E) over (C)? I thought this was a deceptively tricky question. I see why (E) works, and I debated for like two minutes when I was taking it, but how would you eliminate (C)? I am guessing it's because the argument doesn't do a "comparison between the parties," rather just states that it's the best. Does qualifying it as the best not count as a comparison? Thanks. Also the RC was indeed terrible. Hoping for an easier RC. I also need to stop missing easy identification questions that has clear answers in the text due to being a lazy fuck to check the text. I have noticed that the newer RC makes you look at the text more than before though. Ugh.

-1 on each LR, -0 on LG, and then -5 on RC.
I hate RC with a passion

Just to add my 2 cents. Like others, I don't think C is a flaw. I'm thinking it is a comparison because how can you make a superlative statement without necessarily comparing to others? Additionally, how would comparing the parties to a competition not be a legitimate way of predicting the outcome of an event? I was expecting parts/whole fallacy like everyone else, but E seemed pretty good to me.

One thing that I learned that helped me with flaw questions is that the correct answer has to both be a flaw and be present in the argument. You can usually eliminate the majority of the ACs with that two pronged attack.

On the positive, you're clearly stronger in LR which is the majority of the test. So you have the hard stuff down AND if there is a monster of an RC section then it'll likely be compensated with a big juicy curve, easy games, or both like in this PT.

Thanks for that flaw advice - I never thought about it with that perspective and it makes a lot of sense to do so! You're right about LR and RC, it's just frustrating because my RC score seems to fluctuate a lot.

TheColonel

Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:44 pm

### Re: PT 65 discussion

Micdiddy wrote:
TheColonel wrote:
Micdiddy wrote:PT 65 95/177

I took this one two section Thursday and two today, so doesn't really count, but anyway:

LR1. -0

LG. -1

RC. -4

LR2. -1, don't know why that wolf question was so hard for me, the re-wording just threw me off completely and the right answer was one I kept skipping because I was so sure it was wrong from my first impression of "wtf?"

Oh well. PT's are done, tomorrow is for light drilling. Bring it on Monday.

Are you me? I had the exact same splits but missed my single LR question in the first section. Over all I was pretty happy that I got a 177 with this bitch of an RC section. Was your LG mistake a careless error as well? It really is a crapshoot whether I miss one due to misreading a question or just writing down the wrong answer in LG.

Yep, careless error. It was on the TV show game when it asked of W was first how many diff possibilities there were, for some reason completely forgot T would have to 2nd and diagrammed it with 4 possibilities. Just dumb, oh well. 177 pretty decent, looking for that 180 Monday.

Yeah I botched 20 because I didn't account for having the G show come before S and making the time slots different than if the slots were filled by half hour shows.

Out of curiosity, have you hit 180 in your PT's? I've been consistently in the 174-179 range but have only hit 180 on PTs that I've seen parts of before. I'm just hoping it all falls into place tomorrow (CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S TECHNICALLY TOMORROW!!) since I'm convinced that 180s require a bit of luck in addition to some serious LSAT chops.

TERS

Posts: 161
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 11:29 pm

### Re: PT 65 discussion

VasaVasori wrote:
TERS wrote:Until today my most recent was 61 so I thought I'd give this a whirl as it's recent. Crushed my confidence and left me feeling physically sick and weak. Still reeling a bit. Tomorrow needs to be a complete non-LSAT...

Don't worry about it, man. PT65 rocked me.

My average is ~175, with a most recent PT average of ~177.

I got a 170 on PT65.

It's a f'ing hard PT. Don't let it bring you down.

Yeah, definitely trying to shake it off, thanks.

BalanceCare

Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:56 pm

### Re: PT 65 discussion

sigh... why am I only one who thinks the lg was hard? 4th really fucked me. can some1 plz sprinkle some lg fairy dust on me for Monday?!?

TheColonel

Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:44 pm

### Re: PT 65 discussion

BalanceCare wrote:sigh... why am I only one who thinks the lg was hard? 4th really fucked me. can some1 plz sprinkle some lg fairy dust on me for Monday?!?

I got trucked by 64's LG which I've heard many say is on the easier side. It's really easy to misdiagram and completely set yourself down the wrong track on LG so some can have a harder time while others see it as pretty easy.

Micdiddy

Posts: 2228
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:38 pm

### Re: PT 65 discussion

TheColonel wrote:
Micdiddy wrote:
TheColonel wrote:
Micdiddy wrote:PT 65 95/177

I took this one two section Thursday and two today, so doesn't really count, but anyway:

LR1. -0

LG. -1

RC. -4

LR2. -1, don't know why that wolf question was so hard for me, the re-wording just threw me off completely and the right answer was one I kept skipping because I was so sure it was wrong from my first impression of "wtf?"

Oh well. PT's are done, tomorrow is for light drilling. Bring it on Monday.

Are you me? I had the exact same splits but missed my single LR question in the first section. Over all I was pretty happy that I got a 177 with this bitch of an RC section. Was your LG mistake a careless error as well? It really is a crapshoot whether I miss one due to misreading a question or just writing down the wrong answer in LG.

Yep, careless error. It was on the TV show game when it asked of W was first how many diff possibilities there were, for some reason completely forgot T would have to 2nd and diagrammed it with 4 possibilities. Just dumb, oh well. 177 pretty decent, looking for that 180 Monday.

Yeah I botched 20 because I didn't account for having the G show come before S and making the time slots different than if the slots were filled by half hour shows.

Out of curiosity, have you hit 180 in your PT's? I've been consistently in the 174-179 range but have only hit 180 on PTs that I've seen parts of before. I'm just hoping it all falls into place tomorrow (CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S TECHNICALLY TOMORROW!!) since I'm convinced that 180s require a bit of luck in addition to some serious LSAT chops.

Yeah 've hit 180 on two PT's, one in the 20's the other was 61. I def agree that 180 is mostly skill but part luck, there's no huge logical reason my 177-179 weren't 180's, or that my 180's weren't worse than that, except for tests that played to my strengths and environmental factors (careless errors, headaches, etc.).

So yeah, I need to hope Monday plays to my strengths AND that I'm in the right state of mind (and that the curve is good 'cause the best I've done was miss 2 and on some curves that's a 178). Lots of things have to come together, but they could. They could.

Taus11

Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:05 am

### Re: PT 65 discussion

Dude, if you get a 177-179 and don't want it, just throw it my way and you can retake for the 180

MLBrandow

Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:12 pm

### Re: PT 65 discussion

VasaVasori wrote:
TERS wrote:Until today my most recent was 61 so I thought I'd give this a whirl as it's recent. Crushed my confidence and left me feeling physically sick and weak. Still reeling a bit. Tomorrow needs to be a complete non-LSAT...

Don't worry about it, man. PT65 rocked me.

My average is ~175, with a most recent PT average of ~177.

I got a 170 on PT65.

It's a f'ing hard PT. Don't let it bring you down.

I don't know if I'm basking in someone else's plight, but this gave me a good confidence boost. My PT average of late has been around 173-174, and I 171'd PT65.

We're both going to bring it today!

calmike

Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 1:40 pm

### Re: PT 65 discussion

I took PT 65 5-section yesterday.

LG: 0
LR1: -4
RC: -6
LR2: -2

Score: 171

For RC, the blackmail passage was really tough and the passage about the weeds was really tough too. I really need to practice RC.

I am really happy with LG since I have been consistently scoring -0 on it.

LR is improving and I am really happy with my score. If I score a 170 on test day then I am golden.

How do you recommend improving?