The 160s Club! Join all ye 170 hopefuls!

RidiculouslyObvious
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:21 pm

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

Postby RidiculouslyObvious » Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:43 pm

I have hit or exceeded 170 only twice: once on PT16 (173) and I don't really count that one because it's so old, and once on PT43 (170). Since PT43, my scores have been dropping. I just took PT49 and PT50 and got a 165 on both. So I am definitely in the 160s club.
Has anyone else noticed a downward trend starting at around PT43?

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 2:45 pm

missvik218 wrote: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?

I would take 56 a little earlier - I think the RC practice is important - it will really give you a feel for what modern RC sections are (I can tell you what I mean by that, but you should just try it first) It would be good to have a few days after this to review/practice more - same with June 09. Maybe keep Oct 08 as your final - that was a pretty fair one.

If but only if - well, you might want to try the test first to see how you would have handled it just stumbling across on test day, but I'll skip down a couple lines and diagram if you want to read...


If A does x, but only if, then B does y.
Ax -> By
A not x -> B not y
and a key third one...
If By -> Ax (since B can only do y if A does x)

That's it - not terribly complex - but if you skimmed past the words "but only if" or didn't really work out the implications (like I did) you'd be lost on the game.

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 2:49 pm

RidiculouslyObvious wrote:I have hit or exceeded 170 only twice: once on PT16 (173) and I don't really count that one because it's so old, and once on PT43 (170). Since PT43, my scores have been dropping. I just took PT49 and PT50 and got a 165 on both. So I am definitely in the 160s club.
Has anyone else noticed a downward trend starting at around PT43?

There is a difference between new and old - I mainly did better on the new ones because I found the LR more to my liking. LG's can be either way, but tend to be easier on the new - and RC can be tougher. So the different makeup can change your score. If LG was your strong point, you might slip some. But really it just takes a bit to get used to the different type LR - they are quite different somehow.

User avatar
brose002
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 4:34 pm

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

Postby brose002 » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:22 pm

I took the December 06 test today. Scored a 170 with an 89 raw score. It was an easy -11 curve though.

LR1:-3
RC:-5
LR2:-3
LG:-0

Im happy that my reading comp continues to go down, although this test was unusually bad for me in terms of logical reasoning. Typically I get between 2 and 4 wrong total. So there were a couple points I missed out on there. I am happy that my streak of 170s continues though. My next test is the dreaded June 09 one. Hopefully I can conquer those dinos.

User avatar
TTH
Posts: 10378
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 1:14 am

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

Postby TTH » Thu Sep 17, 2009 5:40 pm

Ugh.

After breaking 170 on two old tests (don't recall which right off the bat, but my scores were 174 and 170), I've thrown up a 166 on both PT54 and PT55.

For the entire time I've been prepping, my RC was like a rock. Never any more than -2. Last two PTs have been -3. My LG has improved hugely. However, I'm still scoring roughly the same on LR sections as I was two months ago. It's driving me mad. I've started re-reading the LRB, but I don't know how much ground I can cover since I don't seem to be missing one particular question type.

A 166 is a fine score, but factoring in a test-day drop, I could be looking at a 163. Also a fine score, but neither scores will even get me a whiff at the schools I would like to attend.

I just feel depressed and shitty and would like nothing more than to throw my PS Bibles and PrepTests into Lake Erie right now.

FML

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

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

Postby Bustang » Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:23 pm

There is no such thing as "test day drop." Study harder and consistency will rear it's beautiful face on the 26th.

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

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

Postby nyyankees » Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:25 pm

TipTravHoot wrote:Ugh.

After breaking 170 on two old tests (don't recall which right off the bat, but my scores were 174 and 170), I've thrown up a 166 on both PT54 and PT55.

For the entire time I've been prepping, my RC was like a rock. Never any more than -2. Last two PTs have been -3. My LG has improved hugely. However, I'm still scoring roughly the same on LR sections as I was two months ago. It's driving me mad. I've started re-reading the LRB, but I don't know how much ground I can cover since I don't seem to be missing one particular question type.

A 166 is a fine score, but factoring in a test-day drop, I could be looking at a 163. Also a fine score, but neither scores will even get me a whiff at the schools I would like to attend.

I just feel depressed and shitty and would like nothing more than to throw my PS Bibles and PrepTests into Lake Erie right now.

FML


relax, it will be okay. Just take a good look at the stuff you got wrong in your last two PTs, i think it is critical that you really understand what went wrong in your LRs recently, figure out exactly what you were supposed to be thinking and why you werent thinking that. Did you think that line of argumentation was not strong enough? Did you misread? Did you not register the right conclusion? Did you not notice a scope shift? These are teh types of things if you notice you will be able to improve, even in this short time frame. dust yourself off, and get back on that horse. Once you take the test there will be nothing more you can do, so use your time now to prep yourself to the best of your ability.

lsb
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 5:46 pm

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

Postby lsb » Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:54 pm

ruleser wrote:
missvik218 wrote: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?

I would take 56 a little earlier - I think the RC practice is important - it will really give you a feel for what modern RC sections are (I can tell you what I mean by that, but you should just try it first) It would be good to have a few days after this to review/practice more - same with June 09. Maybe keep Oct 08 as your final - that was a pretty fair one.

If but only if - well, you might want to try the test first to see how you would have handled it just stumbling across on test day, but I'll skip down a couple lines and diagram if you want to read...


If A does x, but only if, then B does y.
Ax -> By
A not x -> B not y
and a key third one...
If By -> Ax (since B can only do y if A does x)

That's it - not terribly complex - but if you skimmed past the words "but only if" or didn't really work out the implications (like I did) you'd be lost on the game.


So this is just equal to Ax<---->By, no?

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 6:59 pm

lsb wrote:
ruleser wrote:I would take 56 a little earlier - I think the RC practice is important - it will really give you a feel for what modern RC sections are (I can tell you what I mean by that, but you should just try it first) It would be good to have a few days after this to review/practice more - same with June 09. Maybe keep Oct 08 as your final - that was a pretty fair one.

If but only if - well, you might want to try the test first to see how you would have handled it just stumbling across on test day, but I'll skip down a couple lines and diagram if you want to read...


If A does x, but only if, then B does y.
Ax -> By
A not x -> B not y
and a key third one...
If By -> Ax (since B can only do y if A does x)

That's it - not terribly complex - but if you skimmed past the words "but only if" or didn't really work out the implications (like I did) you'd be lost on the game.


So this is just equal to Ax<---->By, no?

Yes and no - technically, yes, that is the simplest way to diagram it - but my experience is that the more I can lay things out visually, the better for me on a test. I might not look at what you drew and realize if not B -> not A in the heat of an exam - whichever works for you is best

That has been what has helped most with my LG's - doing things differently than taught, overwriting possibilities so I don't lose something mid-section.

User avatar
forza
Posts: 2777
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:32 am

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

Postby forza » Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:10 pm

Alright. It's time for a Fuck the LSAT rant.

PT 49 (June 2006)

LG: -2 (20/22; a couple stupid errors, but I can live with it)
LR1: -4 (22/26; ugh, I missed 3 of the 5 I circled... this section seemed ridiculously hard)
RC: -2 (25/27; science passage fucked me up a little bit... both misses were on that one)
LR2: -4 (21/25)


Okay, FUCK this second LR section. For one, it says at the top of the first page that it's only got 22 questions. Nice job, LSAC. Thanks for the false joy I got outta that one. (Check your PrepTests if you don't believe me).

Two, I changed my answer on #8 from A (correct) to D (incorrect). I think it's because answer choice D mentions "many" ancient plants, whereas the stimulus mentions only "unique" plants. But then answer choice A only says "pollens," it doesn't offer any sort of quantifying word there. What the fuck?

Three, #18 is the dumbest fucking assumption question I've ever seen.

Four, why is #19 A instead of B? I am dumbfounded here.

Five, #23? WTF?!

PT 49 is just an all-around fail. On my part and LSAC's. I thought after acing the LG and RC sections I'd be golden to get a 170+, and then I go fucking -8 on LR. With a -10 curve. AGHHHRHRHHGHHG.

Raw: 88
Scaled: 168

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

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

Postby nyyankees » Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:20 pm

forza wrote:Alright. It's time for a Fuck the LSAT rant.

PT 49 (June 2006)

LG: -2 (20/22; a couple stupid errors, but I can live with it)
LR1: -4 (22/26; ugh, I missed 3 of the 5 I circled... this section seemed ridiculously hard)
RC: -2 (25/27; science passage fucked me up a little bit... both misses were on that one)
LR2: -4 (21/25)


Okay, FUCK this second LR section. For one, it says at the top of the first page that it's only got 22 questions. Nice job, LSAC. Thanks for the false joy I got outta that one. (Check your PrepTests if you don't believe me).

Two, I changed my answer on #8 from A (correct) to D (incorrect). I think it's because answer choice D mentions "many" ancient plants, whereas the stimulus mentions only "unique" plants. But then answer choice A only says "pollens," it doesn't offer any sort of quantifying word there. What the fuck?

Three, #18 is the dumbest fucking assumption question I've ever seen.

Four, why is #19 A instead of B? I am dumbfounded here.

Five, #23? WTF?!

PT 49 is just an all-around fail. On my part and LSAC's. I thought after acing the LG and RC sections I'd be golden to get a 170+, and then I go fucking -8 on LR. With a -10 curve. AGHHHRHRHHGHHG.

Raw: 88
Scaled: 168


I LOLed

User avatar
forza
Posts: 2777
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:32 am

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

Postby forza » Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:41 pm

nyyankees wrote:
forza wrote:Alright. It's time for a Fuck the LSAT rant.

PT 49 (June 2006)

LG: -2 (20/22; a couple stupid errors, but I can live with it)
LR1: -4 (22/26; ugh, I missed 3 of the 5 I circled... this section seemed ridiculously hard)
RC: -2 (25/27; science passage fucked me up a little bit... both misses were on that one)
LR2: -4 (21/25)


Okay, FUCK this second LR section. For one, it says at the top of the first page that it's only got 22 questions. Nice job, LSAC. Thanks for the false joy I got outta that one. (Check your PrepTests if you don't believe me).

Two, I changed my answer on #8 from A (correct) to D (incorrect). I think it's because answer choice D mentions "many" ancient plants, whereas the stimulus mentions only "unique" plants. But then answer choice A only says "pollens," it doesn't offer any sort of quantifying word there. What the fuck?

Three, #18 is the dumbest fucking assumption question I've ever seen.

Four, why is #19 A instead of B? I am dumbfounded here.

Five, #23? WTF?!

PT 49 is just an all-around fail. On my part and LSAC's. I thought after acing the LG and RC sections I'd be golden to get a 170+, and then I go fucking -8 on LR. With a -10 curve. AGHHHRHRHHGHHG.

Raw: 88
Scaled: 168


I LOLed


Yes... laugh! LAUGH at my despair! :P

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

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

Postby nyyankees » Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:57 pm

forza wrote:
nyyankees wrote:
forza wrote:Alright. It's time for a Fuck the LSAT rant.

PT 49 (June 2006)

LG: -2 (20/22; a couple stupid errors, but I can live with it)
LR1: -4 (22/26; ugh, I missed 3 of the 5 I circled... this section seemed ridiculously hard)
RC: -2 (25/27; science passage fucked me up a little bit... both misses were on that one)
LR2: -4 (21/25)


Okay, FUCK this second LR section. For one, it says at the top of the first page that it's only got 22 questions. Nice job, LSAC. Thanks for the false joy I got outta that one. (Check your PrepTests if you don't believe me).

Two, I changed my answer on #8 from A (correct) to D (incorrect). I think it's because answer choice D mentions "many" ancient plants, whereas the stimulus mentions only "unique" plants. But then answer choice A only says "pollens," it doesn't offer any sort of quantifying word there. What the fuck?

Three, #18 is the dumbest fucking assumption question I've ever seen.

Four, why is #19 A instead of B? I am dumbfounded here.

Five, #23? WTF?!

PT 49 is just an all-around fail. On my part and LSAC's. I thought after acing the LG and RC sections I'd be golden to get a 170+, and then I go fucking -8 on LR. With a -10 curve. AGHHHRHRHHGHHG.

Raw: 88
Scaled: 168


I LOLed


Yes... laugh! LAUGH at my despair! :P


nah, everyone hits their fuck it point, they usually dont disappoint.

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

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

Postby nyyankees » Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:12 pm

forza wrote:
nyyankees wrote:
forza wrote:Alright. It's time for a Fuck the LSAT rant.

PT 49 (June 2006)

LG: -2 (20/22; a couple stupid errors, but I can live with it)
LR1: -4 (22/26; ugh, I missed 3 of the 5 I circled... this section seemed ridiculously hard)
RC: -2 (25/27; science passage fucked me up a little bit... both misses were on that one)
LR2: -4 (21/25)


Okay, FUCK this second LR section. For one, it says at the top of the first page that it's only got 22 questions. Nice job, LSAC. Thanks for the false joy I got outta that one. (Check your PrepTests if you don't believe me).

Two, I changed my answer on #8 from A (correct) to D (incorrect). I think it's because answer choice D mentions "many" ancient plants, whereas the stimulus mentions only "unique" plants. But then answer choice A only says "pollens," it doesn't offer any sort of quantifying word there. What the fuck?

Three, #18 is the dumbest fucking assumption question I've ever seen.

Four, why is #19 A instead of B? I am dumbfounded here.

Five, #23? WTF?!

PT 49 is just an all-around fail. On my part and LSAC's. I thought after acing the LG and RC sections I'd be golden to get a 170+, and then I go fucking -8 on LR. With a -10 curve. AGHHHRHRHHGHHG.

Raw: 88
Scaled: 168


I LOLed


Yes... laugh! LAUGH at my despair! :P



FWIW, I had a fuck the LSAT moment today when I had a -3 w/o RC then shat the bed into the 160s, but i like rant much better.

User avatar
forza
Posts: 2777
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:32 am

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

Postby forza » Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:16 pm

The worst part about it is that it's always 1 or 2 wrong questions keeping you from a 170.

User avatar
solotee
Posts: 481
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:20 pm

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

Postby solotee » Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:24 pm

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: !


After my a 166, I dropped down to a 159 on the very next PT. I'm not letting it affect me this close to the exam. The best thing we can do for ourselves to optimize our performance is to come into the test center with the right mindset, as opposed to being worried that you'll get owned again.

Kulax22
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:23 am

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

Postby Kulax22 » Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:34 pm

So when are you guys going to STOP the PTs?

It occurred to me I have more to do and no time... if I try to avoid burn-out and stop them by this time next week.

I have 53, 54, 56 and 57. Any suggestions which to try?

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 8:38 pm

Kulax22 wrote:So when are you guys going to STOP the PTs?

It occurred to me I have more to do and no time... if I try to avoid burn-out and stop them by this time next week.

I have 53, 54, 56 and 57. Any suggestions which to try?

Do Oct 08 and June 09 for certain.

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 8:57 pm

I tried to compensate for for not getting much sleep last night by drinking way too much coffee. I was so wired that I could hear every little noise in the study room at the library...Couldn't focus at all, especially during the last section (CR). But I somehow escaped with a 172 (-4 LR, -1 LG, and -4 CR). I don't know whether to feel lucky/relieved that I got a decent score or pissed off/nervous that I couldn't concentrate AT ALL.

No more coffee for me for a while. Anyone ever have a similar experience with too much caffeine?

lsb
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 5:46 pm

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

Postby lsb » Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:05 pm

Can anyone explain why "A" is not an acceptable answer on PT 55, Section 1 (LR), # 21?

It seems to say the exact same thing as "B" which is the credited response.

RidiculouslyObvious
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:21 pm

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

Postby RidiculouslyObvious » Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:28 pm

Kulax22 wrote:So when are you guys going to STOP the PTs?

It occurred to me I have more to do and no time... if I try to avoid burn-out and stop them by this time next week.

I have 53, 54, 56 and 57. Any suggestions which to try?


I'll stop taking PTs on Thursday of next week, but continue reviewing on Friday. I took 2 days off before the June 09 test, and felt rusty going into it as a result. I think it's a personal preference thing though- some people recommend taking a couple of days off before the test, some say to keep on chugging away until the eleventh hour. Personally, I think maintaining the LSAT as a daily habit will reduce anxiety on Saturday.

02082010
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:10 pm

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

Postby 02082010 » Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:50 pm

Stepped away from it after quitting midway through section 2 on Tuesday and retook PT 55.

-1LR, -1RC, -0LR, -2LG
Raw: 96
Scale: 177

While I think it's odd I've gotten exactly 177 on my last three PTs, I'm not complaining :mrgreen: Doing PT 56 tomorrow and then done with PTs and just doing timed individual sections until Test Day. Glad this will be over soon so I can send apps out and quit stressing.

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

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

Postby keg411 » Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:48 pm

Positive: I feel like I still have one more "breakthrough" in me to get into the 170's.
Negative: I also feel like I need another month to get there. My chances of signing up for December have definitely increased in the past few days.

User avatar
forza
Posts: 2777
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:32 am

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

Postby forza » Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:10 am

hopefulundergrad wrote:Stepped away from it after quitting midway through section 2 on Tuesday and retook PT 55.

-1LR, -1RC, -0LR, -2LG
Raw: 96
Scale: 177

While I think it's odd I've gotten exactly 177 on my last three PTs, I'm not complaining :mrgreen: Doing PT 56 tomorrow and then done with PTs and just doing timed individual sections until Test Day. Glad this will be over soon so I can send apps out and quit stressing.


No PT 57? Or did you already take that one?

02082010
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:10 pm

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

Postby 02082010 » Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:25 am

forza wrote:
hopefulundergrad wrote:Stepped away from it after quitting midway through section 2 on Tuesday and retook PT 55.

-1LR, -1RC, -0LR, -2LG
Raw: 96
Scale: 177

While I think it's odd I've gotten exactly 177 on my last three PTs, I'm not complaining :mrgreen: Doing PT 56 tomorrow and then done with PTs and just doing timed individual sections until Test Day. Glad this will be over soon so I can send apps out and quit stressing.


No PT 57? Or did you already take that one?


It was like the third or fourth of my 10PTs in 30days schedule bc I wanted to see what all the dino game fuss was about.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexandros, cianchetta0, Instrumental, LAW1995, nimbus cloud, nunumaster and 18 guests