PT 62 - Really hard LR?! Forum

[WanderingPondering]

Holy crap. Did anyone seriously struggle with the LR? I was -4 on both but it could have been even worse. I know there was a lenient curve on this test, but getting nervous that I'm losing a grip on the LR.

[noobishned]

Holy crap. Did anyone seriously struggle with the LR? I was -4 on both but it could have been even worse. I know there was a lenient curve on this test, but getting nervous that I'm losing a grip on the LR.

Thank god you made this post! I came here to hunt for the same question because I also went -4 on one LR and -5 on the other.. still did alright thanks to the curve, but I was worried till I read this. So, Thanks!

[AM12345]

I actually sat for this test and wound up cancelling. I scored 176-180 on all of my PTs in the month leading up to the test & rarely missed any in LR, but on this test LR kicked my butt. Review it, let it go & keep going!

[togepi]

I thought the first section was much harder than the second. I went -5 on the first one and -2 on the second. I missed a lot of false choice questions and that one about sending people to mars, I didn't realize that was a part to whole flaw at first glance

[framboozer]

I found the first section to be abnormally hard although I did make some silly mistakes. I got -7 in the first one (5 were in a stretch of 7 questions - egads!) and -3 on the second. On the next test I took, either PT 60 or 61 I got -0 and -1 (the only 1 I got wrong was the last question of the entire test and it was because I ran out of time. It was an easy one too).

So yep, I struggled.

[defdef]

just took this one yesterday and also had a rough time of it. going into 63 today and hoping for a better result

[ohwhereohwhere]

It makes me feel better that others were having issues with this. The last test I had taken was 59, and I absolutely rocked that.

Then I take 62, and my score drops by an entire six points. I nearly shat myself, and I've been stressing all day.

So hopefully it's just a fluke. I'm going to run through the other 60s this week to try and gauge it, so I hope I can bring it up.

Nervous.

[timeless]

this is why i feel that assuming solid prep, luck must play a big role on the test day....
I did well on PT62...-2 total, similar with PT63 (-2) and PT64 (-3).
But i bombed PT65 (-9). It wasnt nerves nor was it burnout. The tricks and thinking required seemed unconventional. Well thats just me.
Anyone willing to share their experience with this particular test (65) relative to other tests?? Or for that matter any PT where you had a massive dip?

Thanks~

[crestor]

this is why i feel that assuming solid prep, luck must play a big role on the test day....
I did well on PT62...-2 total, similar with PT63 (-2) and PT64 (-3).
But i bombed PT65 (-9). It wasnt nerves nor was it burnout. The tricks and thinking required seemed unconventional. Well thats just me.
Anyone willing to share their experience with this particular test (65) relative to other tests?? Or for that matter any PT where you had a massive dip?

Thanks~

I'll drink a beer to not being lucky.

[bilbaosan]

For proper comparison I assume we're all talking about taking a timed full prep here.

Yes, it was unusually difficult. I got -12 on the first LR, which is absolutely the worst I've ever had on LR. Got -4 on the second LR, but it was significantly easier than the first one. And what is worse, among those 12 only in three cases I actually understood the question, the rest were like "what exactly did you mean?" which didn't happen since PT30 series.

LG was also difficult in that test, I got more mistakes than in RC which again never happened before. RC section was easy though comparing to 60/61.

But then PT62 is Dec 2010, and I believe it was 2010 when the law school admissions started dropping dramatically. This supports that we probably won't see such a difficult test again for a while, if ever.

[PourMeTea]

Post removed.

[Jeffort]

But then PT62 is Dec 2010, and I believe it was 2010 when the law school admissions started dropping dramatically. This supports that we probably won't see such a difficult test again for a while, if ever.

It doesn't work like that. The LSAT is a standardized test. Test conversion scales and overall difficulty level of test forms is not affected by test taker volume.

[altoid99]

I also sat for the real thing back in December 2010 and thought it was a difficult test at the time. However, you can get 30 (!) wrong on this test and still get a 160. I think that more than compensates for the difficulty.

[Miss-Bubbled]

I usually miss between 0 and 1 on LR, and I missed 3 on the second section...didn't miss any on the first section though. I also really didn't like the last RC passage.

[bilbaosan]

It doesn't work like that. The LSAT is a standardized test. Test conversion scales and overall difficulty level of test forms is not affected by test taker volume.

Yes, it is. Indeed while this test was significantly more difficult than any previous test, and I made way more errors, I still got 159 which is in my range, despite making 30 errors.

The problem with the difficult tests, however, may be that more test takers would think they screwed it up and cancel their scores, so the equation curve wouldn't help them. It kinda sucks when you're not certain in your answers to 90% of the LR section, and half of the LG section. Hell, I'd probably just cancel right after the first LR and left the test. And those people certainly won't be applying to any law schools, therefore diluting the application pool. Most probably won't even bother to retake. So it is counter-productive for LSAC to have a very difficult test if they want to keep the number of applicants up.

[Jeffort]

It doesn't work like that. The LSAT is a standardized test. Test conversion scales and overall difficulty level of test forms is not affected by test taker volume.

Yes, it is. Indeed while this test was significantly more difficult than any previous test, and I made way more errors, I still got 159 which is in my range, despite making 30 errors.

The problem with the difficult tests, however, may be that more test takers would think they screwed it up and cancel their scores, so the equation curve wouldn't help them. It kinda sucks when you're not certain in your answers to 90% of the LR section, and half of the LG section. Hell, I'd probably just cancel right after the first LR and left the test. And those people certainly won't be applying to any law schools, therefore diluting the application pool. Most probably won't even bother to retake. So it is counter-productive for LSAC to have a very difficult test if they want to keep the number of applicants up.

No it isn't. The scale is set to the pre-equated difficulty levels of the sections as they add up to an entire LSAT test-form in order to make sure the scaled scores match the same ability level no matter which test form it is achieved on. This way a 160 on PT62 means the same thing as a 160 on another test-form where you had to get two more raw points for that same scaled score. That's why you still got a 159 despite missing more Qs, you performed at the same 159 skill level, and accordingly/as expected, got a few less correct on a slightly more difficult test form. The PT62 scale that allows roughly two less raw points per scaled score around 160 than other test forms just means that test form as a whole was already determined to be of slightly higher difficulty than other administered LSATs, thus it required less correct answers to demonstrate each scaled ability level.

The slightly elevated difficulty level of PT62 as an entire test as compared to others was known in advance by LSAC and reflected in the scoring scale. Score conversion scales are determined before a test form is administered and only modified slightly if at all if the test performs significantly differently than was expected. Overall test form difficulty is determined before that form is administered by using data from when the sections were administered as experimental.

The skill and performance level of the group of test takers that take a particular test form is not what determines the scale for that test form, sorry dude, that's not how standardized tests work. If the scales were determined by the performance of the group of test takers that take that test-form and curved to the performance of that group as a whole it wouldn't be a standardized test.

You have it backwards. It wasn't the case that PT62 was administered then LSAC noticed that people sucked worse than usual on LR and compensated by loosening the conversion scale. It was the case that LSAC knew before hand that the LR sections were harder than usual and people would suck more on them and preset the scale to be more generous than other tests even before they administered it. That's how it goes cuz they already know a section is harder from people sucking more on it when it was used in experimentals.

Test taker volume has nothing to do with the scales or difficulty levels of different test forms. That stuff about hard test forms being against LSACs interest and having an effect on test taker volumes is just plain silly.

[bilbaosan]

We're talking about the same thing. My "yes it is" was actually to agree that the test conversion scale reflects the test difficulty, and this is why I got my typical result even while significantly screwing it up.

The curve for a new test is unknown to test takers. At the moment the test is administered nobody (except LSAC) knows the test is more difficult than usual and that the curve would be adjusted to compensate for that. All a test taker sees that the test is difficult, and he thinks, "wow, I really screwed it up! I didn't prepare well, and I don't believe I can get any decent score from a test where I had to guess in half of logic games". He doesn't have the information whether his screwup is caused by a test being so difficult, or by him not being prepared enough. He doesn't know that if he proceed with the test, he'd still got his typical score because of adjusted curve. So what is the reasonable course here? To cancels the score. Does LSAC publish the score cancellation statistics?

Now goes the speculation. A person with a canceled score is someone who will not apply into the law school until the next LSAT, and some would never apply at all. A few would retake, but most probably wouldn't - life goes on, plans change, family circumstances, dealing with extra hassle, and so on. So having a more difficult test should lead to a smaller applicant pool, and considering the declining number of applicants, this is definitely not what LSAC wants. Hence we should not expect another difficult test soon.

Of course having an easier test doesn't mean one would score higher, I'm not saying that. But there should be way less cancellations with easier tests.

[Jeffort]

Whew, I'm glad you understand that the scale is predetermined, it sounded like you meant the opposite from your text.

I really don't want to get into all the things that are wrong with your argument about how slightly more difficult than usual test forms affect test takers other than just the scale for their test because it is a silly argument with tons of problems, but I'll hit the big ones.

I mean really, the test is hard for everyone no matter the scale and the difficulty differences are minor so it's not like there is ever a significant noticeable difference that could make a normally manageable test crushing to the same test taker just because it's a little bit harder than usual. If somebody gets demoralized to the point of defeat or affected enough to have drastic reactions to a few slightly more difficult than usual LR questions or a harder than usual LG, then it kinda begs the question of whether that test taker actually has whatever underlying skill level you presume would have been reflected had he/she instead been given an easier test form that didn't throw them off unusually. Do you not see your circular reasoning here? You also presume that people are able to accurately know how many questions they answered correctly before the scores are released in order to know they performed significantly worse than they usually do.

Keep in mind that scale/test difficulty differences only make at biggest 1-2 point scaled score differences from 1-4 raw point differences as compared to other easier test-forms. The performance difference between forms of different difficulty from the same ability level test taker is not supposed to be and will not be dramatically different to the level of 'oh I really screwed this test up, I must not have been prepared'. Who would make that decision based on just one section anyway unless going for 170+? People that have bad judgment about their own ability and performance cannot blame that personal defect on LSAC and use it to claim the test is unfair to them because they overreacted. That is silly. If somebody sucks at gauging their own performance, they are probably not prepared enough to take the test yet and would end up being reflected by them freaking out on test day cuz a section was really challenging to them. If a super hard game appears and you let it destroy the entire section for you, that is your fault for not reacting better like a skilled test taker would, not an unfair section since you could have just moved onto the next game and only given up a few points instead of two whole games worth or whatever due to reacting badly/poor time management.

You possibly have the cause and effect relationship reversed.

Prepared test takers don't let a few extra hard challenging questions/LG throw them off their overall performance by more than just those few raw points. If you let a whopper hard question or LG or RC passage screw up your performance on other questions, you are not a skilled test taker in all regards cuz you managed time poorly and/or also let your emotional reaction to difficult material knock you off your game and carry over into your processing of later questions. Freaking out and choking on a section because its a little harder than usual is caused by a weakness in skill level, and is not an unfair result from the cause.

If somebody admits defeat and/or has an extreme reaction because a section felt harder than usual, they are definitely lacking in some of the skills the LSAT is supposed to measure, hard to name just one though, and those lacking abilities get properly reflected in their score from a poor overall performance.

Why do all your complaints and arguments against the LSAT involve and boil down to claims of somebody somehow being victimized by the test unfairly and it being unfairly biased against certain types of people? That is a running theme in every one of your arguments against aspects of the test you find challenging that affect your performance.

People that get spooked and freak out from sections that are slightly harder than usual do not have high score range ability level, as is proved by them freaking out over a few harder than usual LR questions like a wimp that buckles under a little extra pressure.

Why do you think it is unfair that some harder than typical questions can throw off some test takers more than others and screw up their scores? The test is supposed to do that, it's part of how it shakes out lower ability test takers from getting into the higher ranges due to luck. People that suck with certain important skills will get punished for it by the test like it is designed to do, nothing unfair about it. If you suck at rising up to difficult challenges or managing time wisely during the test, your LSAT score should and will rightfully reflect that weakness whether or not you like it since it is part of the skill set the test is designed to measure and rate.

That you are actually thinking that LSAC might or should make decisions about harder/easier score conversion scales, harder/easier test forms/sections based on how harder test forms might emotionally affect certain test takers negatively, hurt wimpy cry babies and influence peoples life decisions in negative ways is amusing. You do realize that a big part of what the LSAT is intentionally designed to do is crush many peoples law school dreams right?

[bilbaosan]

No, I do not agree with your last sentence. LSAC is under pressure from both sides. On one side they want to have the meaningful performance numbers so they can rank the people by the numbers. On the other side they don't want to cut off too many people, because law schools need more applicants, and the more applicants they have, the better.

Indeed, an argument could be made that someone who chickened off the harder-than-usual test wouldn't probably succeed in law school anyway. But it is a largely unknown variable unless we confuse "succeeding in law school" with "graduating with honors from Harvard and clerking for a Supreme Court Justice". Cynically speaking, a middle/low rank school would definitely prefer to admit an unqualified but paying applicant than to close it because they could admit nobody else. So they would put more pressure on LSAC on that matter.

It looks like you're basing your conclusion on an extremely small number of people who go to the test well-prepared and target 175+. But they are statistically insignificant. They don't make the overall bunk of applicants among the all law schools, and are a concern to a very few top schools.

This is why I believe LSAT would keep the difficulty of the test low after #62 - because they do not want to have the number of potential applicants go down even further. So far I only got #63 and I can confirm it was significantly easier (22 errors vs 30). Of course I got my typical score, but I definitely felt more confident and wouldn't cancel this test even though the score wasn't much higher comparing to #62. I will finish 64-69 in the next few days and will get more specific conclusion on that matter.

[Jeffort]

Again, your presumptions about what motivates LSAC, how they run their operation and how they actually make decisions is amusing.

I guess if your law school plans don't work out the way you want you could use your thoughts and imagination to write a book "If I were in charge of LSAC, this is how I would run the law school admissions process". Other than for that, your guesswork is pointless speculation based on your assumptions about what is more and less important to LSAC and law schools in the processes that they use as priorities for making important decisions.

[bilbaosan]

Why not? That's how the science works, you generate an idea based on certain understanding, and then verify it through empirical means. So if any of 64-69 would be as hard (or worse) than 62, this would mean my idea is wrong. If not, there is a possibility it is correct.

Good idea about the book, will you promote it for a fifty-fifty split?

[Jeffort]

Why not? That's how the science works, you generate an idea based on certain understanding, and then verify it through empirical means. So if any of 64-69 would be as hard (or worse) than 62, this would mean my idea is wrong. If not, there is a possibility it is correct.

Good idea about the book, will you promote it for a fifty-fifty split?

Nah, I'll pass on your offer. You make way too many unwarranted assumptions in your reasoning and your theories for my taste. They would get lambasted and torn apart if they weren't labeled as fiction for entertainment purposes only.