The Official September 2014 Study Group Forum

[jmjm]

what are those who have run out of PTs doing to gauge improvement? Retake score on a PT can be highly inflated even when one thinks it's not. if any company made faux questions similar or more difficult than lsat then that could be useful.

So it was -5 for 175. It was one of those tests where no raw score gets you a 176, so...

solid score! can you describe your time stamps for lr and individual passages in rc? iirc i ran out of time in both lr/rc when i took this pt.

[BJS]

Has anyone else had this inverse where they feel like the did horrible on a section and great on another only to find the opposite actually happened?

Oh god yes. I had one where the first half of the test felt so bad that I almost threw in the towel, and I ended up actually getting -0 on both of the first two sections. It was unexpected.

Anyways, took PT 63 today, went:
LR1: - 0
LG: -1 ... Game 3 (car types) was killer for me. I spent 5 minutes total on the first two games and just got really stumped by a couple of questions in 3. When I got the answers by POE, and realized which one was right, it was like "ohhhhh that should have been easier"
LR2: -2 that question about the cops getting an award? WTF was that. I need to find an explanation.
RC: -2

So it was -5 for 175. It was one of those tests where no raw score gets you a 176, so...

None of my mistakes were silly errors, just tough questions that I got wrong, although for 2 of them, my second choice was the right answer.

I've realized that my raw score is very very consistent. Last week's debacle aside, I almost always get exactly 5 wrong. Weird.


I'm going to go make pizza now.

I am absolutely stumped about the cop award question as well. I spent over a minute deciding between A and B, then spent about half a minute after finishing the section before time ended reviewing it - then spent about five minutes on it during Blind Review. I still don't understand why it is A rather than B.

[Gray]

.

[Comstock]

Has anyone else had this inverse where they feel like the did horrible on a section and great on another only to find the opposite actually happened?

Oh god yes. I had one where the first half of the test felt so bad that I almost threw in the towel, and I ended up actually getting -0 on both of the first two sections. It was unexpected.

Anyways, took PT 63 today, went:
LR1: - 0
LG: -1 ... Game 3 (car types) was killer for me. I spent 5 minutes total on the first two games and just got really stumped by a couple of questions in 3. When I got the answers by POE, and realized which one was right, it was like "ohhhhh that should have been easier"
LR2: -2 that question about the cops getting an award? WTF was that. I need to find an explanation.
RC: -2

So it was -5 for 175. It was one of those tests where no raw score gets you a 176, so...

None of my mistakes were silly errors, just tough questions that I got wrong, although for 2 of them, my second choice was the right answer.

I've realized that my raw score is very very consistent. Last week's debacle aside, I almost always get exactly 5 wrong. Weird.


I'm going to go make pizza now.

I am absolutely stumped about the cop award question as well. I spent over a minute deciding between A and B, then spent about half a minute after finishing the section before time ended reviewing it - then spent about five minutes on it during Blind Review. I still don't understand why it is A rather than B.

+1. I did that exact same LR section today and that was one so confusing. If anyone has an explanation that would be great. I get why C-E are wrong, but why A is necessarily better than B I don't get. I actually went with A due to it "feeling more right" but I had no logic behind it, nor could I justify it upon review.

[Gray]

.

[boris09]

Can anybody please offer any advice on tackling inference questions in RC? Based on LSATQA and just my general understanding of where I get stuck the most, it's clear I need help. It's weird because I always thought that one can answer an inference question if one understands where the author was going with the passage, but I still get answers wrong on passages where I fully understand the structure and the main point, and end up going -1 on it (the inference question, of course). in the MLSAT RC explanations, the answers for the inference question would always be somewhere in the passage as support for the inference, but I guess I just have a difficult time figuring out which of the five answer choices I should use to go digging in the passage to find support for

Sorry to give such a long explanation for a simple question, just wanted to give a little background to those who may need it to offer me a bit more focused advice.

[Louis1127]

My results for PT 55, which I just took, are different from Boris', yet we ended up with similar scores. Looks like today will not be the day that I get out of the low 160s.

Score: 161

LR -6 combined
RC -7 (-4 on the talk story passage, which I didn't understand)
LG -7 (3 stupid mistakes before bombing the simcoe bus stop game)

well, on every PT, I usually either bomb a game or a passage, and this time I bombed both, yet managed to stay in the 160s (yay?).

I still have work to do on all 3 sections. I thought I did better on both LR and games while I was doing them.

Will get to work tomorrow after class and work. Right now going to take off frustrations by aggressive lifting.

[boris09]

My results for PT 55, which I just took, are different from Boris', yet we ended up with similar scores. Looks like today will not be the day that I get out of the low 160s.

Score: 161

LR -6 combined
RC -7 (-4 on the talk story passage, which I didn't understand)
LG -7 (3 stupid mistakes before bombing the simcoe bus stop game)

well, on every PT, I usually either bomb a game or a passage, and this time I bombed both, yet managed to stay in the 160s (yay?).

I still have work to do on all 3 sections. I thought I did better on both LR and games while I was doing them.

Will get to work tomorrow after class and work. Right now going to take off frustrations by aggressive lifting.

holy crap that bus stop game lol. I had never seen that one before, and if it wasn't for the fact that I had 16 minutes to do it, there's no way I coulda gone -1 on it like I did. Had to do POE for nearly every question. Which reminds me, I need to 7sage this game and see what the damn process is

On a side note, I'd trade my -1 LG for your -6 LR any day, any time


EDIT: of course the bus stop game has a 21 minute explanation by 7sage lmao. Thank god i wasn't the only one tripped up by this question

[JackelJ]

.

[Learn_Live_Hope]

Took PT 62 today and scored 162. Its a 10 point improvement 4 weeks. Not the 170+'s that many others here are scoring, but I am so far satisfied with how it is going. I am still hoping to break 170 before test day.

I forgot to bring my watch to the proctored exam so my timing was off but I actually found that I was more relaxed than previous tests when I had my watch. Does anyone on here not rely on their watch, and only on the 5 min warning, during tests? If so, do you find it helpful or difficult to keep track of the time?

Its still possible

[bound]

PT 54 today.

LR -0
LG -0
RC -7

....

[sfoglia]

solid score! can you describe your time stamps for lr and individual passages in rc? iirc i ran out of time in both lr/rc when i took this pt.

I found the second LR a little tight on time, but not bad. RC was fine but it being the last section was tiring. I think I spend the longest on the Kate Chopin one, and the second passage in the comparative reading section. I do not keep track of time actually reading or time per passage.

There's a Kate Chopin passage?! And I thought the Willa Cather one was exciting! I need to take this PT immediately.

[sfoglia]

PT 54 today.

LR -0
LG -0
RC -7

....

How did you go perfect on LR?! I can't seem to do better than -2!

[hillz]

Okay, folks - need advice. I purchased the Cambridge LG and LR packets, have been working through them daily, and it's going well. I usually miss 0-3 on those sections. However, I didn't really ever work on RC for June or for Sept and I'm consistently missing 3-4. Is it worth buying Cambridge RC late in the game and buckling down? Is it realistic to expect to bring down my RC score in 4/5 weeks?

[Learn_Live_Hope]

Okay, folks - need advice. I purchased the Cambridge LG and LR packets, have been working through them daily, and it's going well. I usually miss 0-3 on those sections. However, I didn't really ever work on RC for June or for Sept and I'm consistently missing 3-4. Is it worth buying Cambridge RC late in the game and buckling down? Is it realistic to expect to bring down my RC score in 4/5 weeks?

Yes… I purchased those as well. Each packet you can finish up in a day or two depending on how much time you have to study. That would be 4 or 8 days the most that you would spend on RC which is about a week. You still have 5 weeks to go. Well, little less, but you get my point.

In all honestly though some such as the law one you should be able to finish up in a day.

[hillz]

Okay, folks - need advice. I purchased the Cambridge LG and LR packets, have been working through them daily, and it's going well. I usually miss 0-3 on those sections. However, I didn't really ever work on RC for June or for Sept and I'm consistently missing 3-4. Is it worth buying Cambridge RC late in the game and buckling down? Is it realistic to expect to bring down my RC score in 4/5 weeks?

Yes… I purchased those as well. Each packet you can finish up in a day or two depending on how much time you have to study. That would be 4 or 8 days the most that you would spend on RC which is about a week. You still have 5 weeks to go. Well, little less, but you get my point.

Okay, sounds good! Will let you know how it goes.

[Hand]

[BillPackets]

I actually eliminated A because I thought that since Penn wasn't eligible, it doesn't fit that well with the conclusion - it's not that he should not receive the award, but that he can't. Still confused.

Per manhattan forum, apparently the first principle in that Q introduces a biconditional. Don't have it in front of me, but I remember the modifier was "but not otherwise." So I guess saying something like "if I'm awarded a trophy, then I won, but not otherwise," is a biconditional statement.

[ilikebaseball]

PT 22
172
RC-4
LR-2
LG-1 (very unusual game)
LR-3
-10... I have a feeling this is going to be similar to the curve we're gonna see, so I'm fairly happy with this score. Couple of stupid mistakes, but I mean 41 whole days to figure that out

[valen]

PT 22
172
RC-4
LR-2
LG-1 (very unusual game)
LR-3
-10...I have a feeling this is going to be similar to the curve we're gonna see, so I'm fairly happy with this score. Couple of stupid mistakes, but I mean 41 whole days to figure that out

Oh lord I hope so, I'd be so pleased with a curve that gets you a 172 at -10

[ilikebaseball]

PT 22
172
RC-4
LR-2
LG-1 (very unusual game)
LR-3
-10...I have a feeling this is going to be similar to the curve we're gonna see, so I'm fairly happy with this score. Couple of stupid mistakes, but I mean 41 whole days to figure that out

Oh lord I hope so, I'd be so pleased with a curve that gets you a 172 at -10

equivalent to a -12 curve. June's was -13 (of course, with the new game thrown in). I think its not crazy to think we'll have a curve, give or take one, in that ballpark! I'd guess -12, but its just speculation. In past tests, September has been a little more lenient than June, however because of the crazy LG in June, I'd say that slightly offsets the usual trend

[Colonel_funkadunk]

I'm going to go make pizza now.

What kind?

also 175 is way legit.

This kind!

It's my homemade specialty! The recipe is in the TLS Cooking Club thread.

Also thanks

Been away from my computer all evening but that is 180 lookin pizza

[Colonel_funkadunk]

PT 22
172
RC-4
LR-2
LG-1 (very unusual game)
LR-3
-10...I have a feeling this is going to be similar to the curve we're gonna see, so I'm fairly happy with this score. Couple of stupid mistakes, but I mean 41 whole days to figure that out

Oh lord I hope so, I'd be so pleased with a curve that gets you a 172 at -10

equivalent to a -12 curve. June's was -13 (of course, with the new game thrown in). I think its not crazy to think we'll have a curve, give or take one, in that ballpark! I'd guess -12, but its just speculation. In past tests, September has been a little more lenient than June, however because of the crazy LG in June, I'd say that slightly offsets the usual trend

Curves have been higher lately. All tests in the 40s are like -8

[ilikebaseball]

PT 22
172
RC-4
LR-2
LG-1 (very unusual game)
LR-3
-10...I have a feeling this is going to be similar to the curve we're gonna see, so I'm fairly happy with this score. Couple of stupid mistakes, but I mean 41 whole days to figure that out

Oh lord I hope so, I'd be so pleased with a curve that gets you a 172 at -10

equivalent to a -12 curve. June's was -13 (of course, with the new game thrown in). I think its not crazy to think we'll have a curve, give or take one, in that ballpark! I'd guess -12, but its just speculation. In past tests, September has been a little more lenient than June, however because of the crazy LG in June, I'd say that slightly offsets the usual trend

Curves have been higher lately. All tests in the 40s are like -8

Seems to be a combo slightly harder tests and more modernized strategies than 10 years ago. The games, in my opinion, are a little more straight forward now. The RC seems to be much tougher though

[Colonel_funkadunk]

Oh lord I hope so, I'd be so pleased with a curve that gets you a 172 at -10

equivalent to a -12 curve. June's was -13 (of course, with the new game thrown in). I think its not crazy to think we'll have a curve, give or take one, in that ballpark! I'd guess -12, but its just speculation. In past tests, September has been a little more lenient than June, however because of the crazy LG in June, I'd say that slightly offsets the usual trend

Curves have been higher lately. All tests in the 40s are like -8

Seems to be a combo slightly harder tests and more modernized strategies than 10 years ago. The games, in my opinion, are a little more straight forward now. The RC seems to be much tougher though

I think that's credited for sure. The comparative passage also changes things, I don't necessarily think that aspect makes it harder. The games seem to be a little more structured. For instance a section I did the other day was 3 different linear and a grouping w no real curveball. Obviously they show up but it seems less
Often than in earlier PTs