The 160s Club! Join all ye 170 hopefuls!

User avatar
nyyankees
Posts: 484
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:50 am

Re: The 160s Club! Join all ye 170 hopefuls!

Postby nyyankees » Wed Sep 16, 2009 4:50 pm

teaadntoast wrote:
missvik218 wrote:
lawduder wrote:
missvik218 wrote:PT 52 -- COME ON :x ... we're getting so close I don't want to be just barely breaking 170 it's so frustrating!
LG -5 (Did anyone else think that the second and fourth game on the test were difficult?!)

I thought that the second and third games were hard, the fourth one was just a sequencing game which I found to be quite easy.

Actually, you're right ... it was the second game which really threw me, I skipped to last two questions to come back to later (I NEVER do this with games). The third was also harder than usual on newer tests and I think just slowed me down, I got the last two wrong on the last game but it was time issue rather than the difficulty of the game.


Which games were these?


Game 2 was kids being assigned to chaperons

[Not sure if you wanted an explanation, but I typed it out before i realized that you might not, so in the words of one of my heroes, Kel Mitchell, "aww here it goes...."

The last two were def trickier, 11 made you identify one of the most basic inferences in the game a rule said said T had to be with either M or O. The question was which one of the following pairs cannot be with P and one of them included T. Typically with this question you are going to be tested on some chain of inference of if one person then not the second, but this one was MUCH more basic. You probably just overthought this one, or expected a higher level of difficulty.

#12 was a similar question, this time you needed to use your inferences. Here you had to use rule #2 to realize that C could not be true. If K is not with M (as in this option), then V must be with O. O already has T and K and cannot have 3 kids. ]

Game 3 was assigning seminars on Goals, Objection, Persuasion, Humor, Negotiating and Telemarketing to a schedule.

User avatar
Bustang
Posts: 439
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 4:26 pm

Re: The 160s Club! Join all ye 170 hopefuls!

Postby Bustang » Wed Sep 16, 2009 5:01 pm

I flipped an inference on PT 52 game #1 which caused me to take 10 minutes on it versus 8 and miss 4 of the questions. On top of that, I barely got to setup the last game due to time. -10 on games sections and scored a 166.

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: The 160s Club! Join all ye 170 hopefuls!

Postby keg411 » Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:52 pm

Good news: antibiotics kicked in and my throat infection is going away
Bad news: lost 3 days of test prep :( (I did a little bit last night in a fever-ish haze and it wasn't pretty). I also had to postpone my schedule PT from Tuesday until tomorrow. Looks like I'm going to have to go into tutoring on the holiday this weekend :(.

JJDancer
Posts: 1564
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 7:41 pm

Re: The 160s Club! Join all ye 170 hopefuls!

Postby JJDancer » Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:41 pm

Does anyone know which PT the following RC passage is a part of?
It talks about moral relativism or something?
I did it a long time ago and SUCKED at it and would like to tackle it again.

Thanks

Also can anyone make sense of this? Or is this normal?
9/2 = 164
9/5 = 168
9/9 = 171
9/10 = 173
9/12 = 172
9/16 = PT 56 = 167 :cry: !

User avatar
Shaggier1
Posts: 721
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:57 am

Re: The 160s Club! Join all ye 170 hopefuls!

Postby Shaggier1 » Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:24 pm

Also can anyone make sense of this? Or is this normal?
9/2 = 164
9/5 = 168
9/9 = 171
9/10 = 173
9/12 = 172
9/16 = PT 56 = 167 :cry: !


Of course it is normal. Everyone has a bad PT here and there. You can't win every game, ya know?

The key is not to let if psyche you out. Consider it a step back before taking two steps forward.

JJDancer
Posts: 1564
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 7:41 pm

Re: The 160s Club! Join all ye 170 hopefuls!

Postby JJDancer » Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:31 pm

Shaggier1 wrote:
Also can anyone make sense of this? Or is this normal?
9/2 = 164
9/5 = 168
9/9 = 171
9/10 = 173
9/12 = 172
9/16 = PT 56 = 167 :cry: !


Of course it is normal. Everyone has a bad PT here and there. You can't win every game, ya know?

The key is not to let if psyche you out. Consider it a step back before taking two steps forward.


Thanks
I know its normal but its hard to not let it get to me so close to test day but I'll try!

JJDancer
Posts: 1564
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 7:41 pm

Re: The 160s Club! Join all ye 170 hopefuls!

Postby JJDancer » Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:44 pm

I figured it out.
It was this passage:
PrepTest 35 (October 2001), Passage 4 - Ronald Dworkin and Legal Positivism vs. Moralism

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: The 160s Club! Join all ye 170 hopefuls!

Postby keg411 » Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:41 pm

JJDancer wrote:I figured it out.
It was this passage:
PrepTest 35 (October 2001), Passage 4 - Ronald Dworkin and Legal Positivism vs. Moralism


HATE.THAT.PASSAGE

BigJiggaJ87
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 9:07 am

Re: The 160s Club! Join all ye 170 hopefuls!

Postby BigJiggaJ87 » Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:17 am

keg411 wrote:
JJDancer wrote:I figured it out.
It was this passage:
PrepTest 35 (October 2001), Passage 4 - Ronald Dworkin and Legal Positivism vs. Moralism


HATE.THAT.PASSAGE


That's the first passage I'm going to burn after next Saturday.

User avatar
ruleser
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 2:41 am

Re: The 160s Club! Join all ye 170 hopefuls!

Postby ruleser » Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:03 am

JJDancer wrote:Does anyone know which PT the following RC passage is a part of?
It talks about moral relativism or something?
I did it a long time ago and SUCKED at it and would like to tackle it again.

Thanks

Also can anyone make sense of this? Or is this normal?
9/2 = 164
9/5 = 168
9/9 = 171
9/10 = 173
9/12 = 172
9/16 = PT 56 = 167 :cry: !

I just retook PT 56 tonight (I took it as the actual exam back in Dec 08)
It is not an easy test - if you miss the "if but only if" in the games you are in trouble. The RC even this second time was tough to finish. And the LR - even as a second time I did the worst I've done on LR in a long time. So don't worry too much - also, looking at your numbers, you look about where I was last time, just a couple times breaking 170, mainly upper 160's. I hit 168 on the test. But keep plugging, maybe you can get those last few that will tip you over 170 on the actual.

PT 56
LG -0 (Yay, much better than the -9 I got back in Dec on the real one - yes, I knew to look for 'if but only if' but still didn't recall the rest.
LR1 -2 (changed one last second from right to wrong)
LR2 -2 (both were repeat wrongs, which I just was fighting against what I thought I recalled)
RC -2 (missed the same damn thing in the 1st passage as on the real thing, the thing about 'modern versions'. That took a bunch of time as well like last time. At least this time I knew to keep moving, and so beat the -5 last time due to shortness of time for the last passage.)

Total: -6 = 175

Well, my string of 178's is over, but beats the 161 I got on it back in Dec. Honestly though, I prefer new LR sections to ones I butchered in the past - think I could have hit 178 if that were the case. I don't recall most of the questions, but the ones I missed I remembered as ones I'd gotten wrong last time, and have this jumble of what I think I thought wrongly was right, and what really was right - instead of just reading and answering - much tougher than just a fresh read to me.

Also, I am about out of PT's I don't recall doing (I've done most/all, but some I didn't recall much.) I'll try to find the 1 or 2 I didn't do, but from here on out it's repeat type work. In any case, I'm feeling pretty good and ready to do the real thing.

User avatar
missvik218
Posts: 1103
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:45 am

Re: The 160s Club! Join all ye 170 hopefuls!

Postby missvik218 » Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:43 am

ruleser wrote:
JJDancer wrote:Does anyone know which PT the following RC passage is a part of?
It talks about moral relativism or something?
I did it a long time ago and SUCKED at it and would like to tackle it again.

Thanks

Also can anyone make sense of this? Or is this normal?
9/2 = 164
9/5 = 168
9/9 = 171
9/10 = 173
9/12 = 172
9/16 = PT 56 = 167 :cry: !

I just retook PT 56 tonight (I took it as the actual exam back in Dec 08)
It is not an easy test - if you miss the "if but only if" in the games you are in trouble. The RC even this second time was tough to finish. And the LR - even as a second time I did the worst I've done on LR in a long time. So don't worry too much - also, looking at your numbers, you look about where I was last time, just a couple times breaking 170, mainly upper 160's. I hit 168 on the test. But keep plugging, maybe you can get those last few that will tip you over 170 on the actual.

PT 56
LG -0 (Yay, much better than the -9 I got back in Dec on the real one - yes, I knew to look for 'if but only if' but still didn't recall the rest.
LR1 -2 (changed one last second from right to wrong)
LR2 -2 (both were repeat wrongs, which I just was fighting against what I thought I recalled)
RC -2 (missed the same damn thing in the 1st passage as on the real thing, the thing about 'modern versions'. That took a bunch of time as well like last time. At least this time I knew to keep moving, and so beat the -5 last time due to shortness of time for the last passage.)

Total: -6 = 175

Well, my string of 178's is over, but beats the 161 I got on it back in Dec. Honestly though, I prefer new LR sections to ones I butchered in the past - think I could have hit 178 if that were the case. I don't recall most of the questions, but the ones I missed I remembered as ones I'd gotten wrong last time, and have this jumble of what I think I thought wrongly was right, and what really was right - instead of just reading and answering - much tougher than just a fresh read to me.

Also, I am about out of PT's I don't recall doing (I've done most/all, but some I didn't recall much.) I'll try to find the 1 or 2 I didn't do, but from here on out it's repeat type work. In any case, I'm feeling pretty good and ready to do the real thing.

Ruleser, best of luck with the 178+, I also scored 161 on my first go around! Even if you don't make it quite there it sounds like even on your off days you're 175+ so I think you're golden!

It sound like PT 56 is just a difficult test, which sorta blows because I'm scheduled to take it as my last one before the exam. Do you guys think I should switch it out with PT 50 which I'm scheduled to take tomorrow? I don't want to be on a down turn right before test day.

Also, I'm sure I could look this up pretty easily but I'd rather just ask; how do you diagram if but only if?

EmVan
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:26 pm

Re: The 160s Club! Join all ye 170 hopefuls!

Postby EmVan » Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:54 am

A if but only if B:

Combination of "A if B" and "A only if B".

A if B: B -> A
A only if B: A -> B

Combined:

A <-> B

No?

JJDancer
Posts: 1564
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 7:41 pm

Re: The 160s Club! Join all ye 170 hopefuls!

Postby JJDancer » Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:02 am

ruleser wrote:
JJDancer wrote:Does anyone know which PT the following RC passage is a part of?
It talks about moral relativism or something?
I did it a long time ago and SUCKED at it and would like to tackle it again.

Thanks

Also can anyone make sense of this? Or is this normal?
9/2 = 164
9/5 = 168
9/9 = 171
9/10 = 173
9/12 = 172
9/16 = PT 56 = 167 :cry: !

I just retook PT 56 tonight (I took it as the actual exam back in Dec 08)
It is not an easy test - if you miss the "if but only if" in the games you are in trouble. The RC even this second time was tough to finish. And the LR - even as a second time I did the worst I've done on LR in a long time. So don't worry too much - also, looking at your numbers, you look about where I was last time, just a couple times breaking 170, mainly upper 160's. I hit 168 on the test. But keep plugging, maybe you can get those last few that will tip you over 170 on the actual.!


Thanks. I know I have it in me to pull off a 176 or 178 but I don't think I want to wait until December. Hopefully I can work out the last kinks in my brain and pull out a 173+ on the exam! I'm good with the if but only if thing..I ran out of time for 2 LG questions. -3 on each LR did NOT help. I had started missing 3 total on the exam for LR and normally I miss about 2 for RC but this time I missed 4. Hopefully June 09 will be better on Saturday, dino game and all.

lawduder
Posts: 483
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:56 am

Re: The 160s Club! Join all ye 170 hopefuls!

Postby lawduder » Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:28 am

EmVan wrote:A if but only if B:

Combination of "A if B" and "A only if B".

A if B: B -> A
A only if B: A -> B

Combined:

A <-> B

No?

I never liked the little diagrams but if you're saying either (A and B) or not (A and B), then yeah that's right.

tamlyric
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:21 pm

Re: The 160s Club! Join all ye 170 hopefuls!

Postby tamlyric » Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:37 am

lawduder wrote:
EmVan wrote:A if but only if B:

Combination of "A if B" and "A only if B".

A if B: B -> A
A only if B: A -> B

Combined:

A <-> B

No?

I never liked the little diagrams but if you're saying either (A and B) or not (A and B), then yeah that's right.


Seems like there might be some confusion here. If not, please forgive me.

"A if but only if B" is the same as "A if and only B". This means that A and B are both mutually sufficient and necessary conditions of one another. In other words, if A, then B; and if B, then A. The second part of Lawduder's formulation is misleading, since "not(A and B)" is the same as "notA or notB". But it should be "notA and notB" in order to capture the meaning of "A if but only if B". They're either both true or both false. (I think this is probably what was intended.)

Edit: Sorry if this came across as pedantic.

JJDancer
Posts: 1564
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 7:41 pm

Re: The 160s Club! Join all ye 170 hopefuls!

Postby JJDancer » Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:41 am

EmVan wrote:A if but only if B:

Combination of "A if B" and "A only if B".

A if B: B -> A
A only if B: A -> B

Combined:

A <-> B

No?


Yes

A -> B
-B -> -A

B -> A
-A -> -B

If you have either..you have both.
If you are missing either..you have none.

User avatar
NancyBotwin
Posts: 1085
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:43 pm

Re: The 160s Club! Join all ye 170 hopefuls!

Postby NancyBotwin » Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:44 am

I think I'm going to cry. Took PT45 the other day, 172. I was feeling really good, and then the next day I took PT46...164. And last night, PT43, 165. WTF?

On PT45 I was, I think, -4 RC, -3 LR1, -2 LR2, and -1 LG. But the last two have been -9 RC in addition to getting a couple more LR wrong. I don't know what to do with just over a week to go, but I still have I think 8 PTs left (late 40s and some 50s).

:cry:

User avatar
teaadntoast
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 3:31 pm

Re: The 160s Club! Join all ye 170 hopefuls!

Postby teaadntoast » Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:47 am

Nancy, was there anything different about your testing conditions or routine when you did those last two?

Tired? Hungry? Stressed?

It sounds like you were a bit shaken after PT46 and maybe it affected PT43?

User avatar
Shaggier1
Posts: 721
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:57 am

Re: The 160s Club! Join all ye 170 hopefuls!

Postby Shaggier1 » Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:49 am

but I still have I think 8 PTs left (late 40s and some 50s).


Nancy, you are freaking out over tests that are unlikely to be representative the test you will face on the 26th. If recent trends are any indication, the RC on this coming test will be easier then those in the mid to late 40's and the games will be harder.

I recommend that you take tests 56 and 57 if you haven't already.

User avatar
NancyBotwin
Posts: 1085
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:43 pm

Re: The 160s Club! Join all ye 170 hopefuls!

Postby NancyBotwin » Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:50 am

teaadntoast wrote:Nancy, was there anything different about your testing conditions or routine when you did those last two?

Tired? Hungry? Stressed?

It sounds like you were a bit shaken after PT46 and maybe it affected PT43?


Yes, actually. During PT46 my bf was over, and he was making a lot of noise while he made dinner for me in the kitchen, so it was a bit distracting. But during PT43 I was alone, and it was quiet - so maybe you're right, and I was just shaken. I hope that's it, anyway. :\

User avatar
NancyBotwin
Posts: 1085
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:43 pm

Re: The 160s Club! Join all ye 170 hopefuls!

Postby NancyBotwin » Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:50 am

Shaggier1 wrote:
but I still have I think 8 PTs left (late 40s and some 50s).


Nancy, you are freaking out over tests that are unlikely to be representative the test you will face on the 26th. If recent trends are any indication, the RC on this coming test will be easier then those in the mid to late 40's and the games will be harder.

I recommend that you take tests 56 and 57 if you haven't already.


I hope that's the case! RC is, for whatever reason, my worst. I can handle harder games, but I don't think I could handle harder RC.

User avatar
teaadntoast
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 3:31 pm

Re: The 160s Club! Join all ye 170 hopefuls!

Postby teaadntoast » Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:53 am

NancyBotwin wrote: Yes, actually. During PT46 my bf was over, and he was making a lot of noise while he made dinner for me in the kitchen, so it was a bit distracting. But during PT43 I was alone, and it was quiet - so maybe you're right, and I was just shaken. I hope that's it, anyway. :\


Sounds like those two were just flukes, then. :D

User avatar
NancyBotwin
Posts: 1085
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:43 pm

Re: The 160s Club! Join all ye 170 hopefuls!

Postby NancyBotwin » Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:55 am

teaadntoast wrote:
NancyBotwin wrote: Yes, actually. During PT46 my bf was over, and he was making a lot of noise while he made dinner for me in the kitchen, so it was a bit distracting. But during PT43 I was alone, and it was quiet - so maybe you're right, and I was just shaken. I hope that's it, anyway. :\


Sounds like those two were just flukes, then. :D


Here's hopin'. I love how we can always rely on TLS to make us feel better about crappy PTs. Thanks guys. :D

BigJiggaJ87
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 9:07 am

Re: The 160s Club! Join all ye 170 hopefuls!

Postby BigJiggaJ87 » Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:06 pm

NancyBotwin wrote:
Shaggier1 wrote:
but I still have I think 8 PTs left (late 40s and some 50s).


Nancy, you are freaking out over tests that are unlikely to be representative the test you will face on the 26th. If recent trends are any indication, the RC on this coming test will be easier then those in the mid to late 40's and the games will be harder.

I recommend that you take tests 56 and 57 if you haven't already.


I hope that's the case! RC is, for whatever reason, my worst. I can handle harder games, but I don't think I could handle harder RC.


Don't worry about your performance on any previous PTs. The fact that you've scored in the 170s before means you are capable of doing it on any given day. Just focus on the PT at hand and stay positive! :)

lawduder
Posts: 483
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:56 am

Re: The 160s Club! Join all ye 170 hopefuls!

Postby lawduder » Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:14 pm

tamlyric wrote:
lawduder wrote:
EmVan wrote:A if but only if B:

Combination of "A if B" and "A only if B".

A if B: B -> A
A only if B: A -> B

Combined:

A <-> B

No?

I never liked the little diagrams but if you're saying either (A and B) or not (A and B), then yeah that's right.


Seems like there might be some confusion here. If not, please forgive me.

"A if but only if B" is the same as "A if and only B". This means that A and B are both mutually sufficient and necessary conditions of one another. In other words, if A, then B; and if B, then A. The second part of Lawduder's formulation is misleading, since "not(A and B)" is the same as "notA or notB". But it should be "notA and notB" in order to capture the meaning of "A if but only if B". They're either both true or both false. (I think this is probably what was intended.)

Edit: Sorry if this came across as pedantic.


right, my mistake, what I meant to say was either you have both A and B or you don't have either of them




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cctv and 3 guests