The 160s Club! Join all ye 170 hopefuls!

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

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

Postby JJDancer » Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:08 am

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 took this a while ago but I think I score similarly. Not a fan of PT 49. Also, I totally remember the wrong # of questions listed which also threw me off!! RAWR, LSAC.

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

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

Postby JJDancer » Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:09 am

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?


At least do 57.
And 56?

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

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

Postby JJDancer » Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:16 am

lsb wrote: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.


The stimulus says that "anyone who feels that a TV show is worth preserving ought to buy the products advertised during that show."

The CR is the only that describes WHICH PRINCIPLE this reasoning most closely conforms to.

A says that the TV show that one feels is worth preserving would be canceled unless ONE took certain actions. But if only ONE person bought the products, the show would still be canceled. Because the stimulus states "unless MANY people watching the show buy the products as a result."

It's one of those the devil is in the details thing.

For example for C..the word everyone makes it wrong. For D, the likelihood part makes it wrong. For E, the words "feel most strongly" make it wrong.

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

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

Postby Bustang » Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:31 am

LR1 on PT 49 IS the most difficult LR i've done since I started studying. I didn't even grade it that's how I felt about it. 168 isn't shabby my friend. Lick your wounds and attack the next one.

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

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

Postby lsb » Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:10 am

JJDancer wrote:
lsb wrote: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.


The stimulus says that "anyone who feels that a TV show is worth preserving ought to buy the products advertised during that show."

The CR is the only that describes WHICH PRINCIPLE this reasoning most closely conforms to.

A says that the TV show that one feels is worth preserving would be canceled unless ONE took certain actions. But if only ONE person bought the products, the show would still be canceled. Because the stimulus states "unless MANY people watching the show buy the products as a result."

It's one of those the devil is in the details thing.

For example for C..the word everyone makes it wrong. For D, the likelihood part makes it wrong. For E, the words "feel most strongly" make it wrong.


Thanks for the help!

I'm sending good luck karma your way for the 26th.

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

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

Postby JJDancer » Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:00 pm

lsb wrote:
JJDancer wrote:
lsb wrote: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.


The stimulus says that "anyone who feels that a TV show is worth preserving ought to buy the products advertised during that show."

The CR is the only that describes WHICH PRINCIPLE this reasoning most closely conforms to.

A says that the TV show that one feels is worth preserving would be canceled unless ONE took certain actions. But if only ONE person bought the products, the show would still be canceled. Because the stimulus states "unless MANY people watching the show buy the products as a result."

It's one of those the devil is in the details thing.

For example for C..the word everyone makes it wrong. For D, the likelihood part makes it wrong. For E, the words "feel most strongly" make it wrong.


Thanks for the help!

I'm sending good luck karma your way for the 26th.


:D ! That good luck is MUCH APPRECIATED! Right back at you lsb.

mrm2083
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:16 pm

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

Postby mrm2083 » Fri Sep 18, 2009 2:10 pm

Just broke into the 170s!
PT 53 171
Raw: 90
LR1: -1
LG: -2
LR2: -2
RC: -4

For the last week I had been doing PT after PT and scoring in the high 160s. It feels good to know that at least once I've finally broken the barrier. It's funny I remember when I first decided to take the lsat my goal was to break a 160, then I joined TLS....

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

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

Postby missvik218 » Fri Sep 18, 2009 2:13 pm

mrm2083 wrote:Just broke into the 170s!
PT 53 171
Raw: 90
LR1: -1
LG: -2
LR2: -2
RC: -4

For the last week I had been doing PT after PT and scoring in the high 160s. It feels good to know that at least once I've finally broken the barrier. It's funny I remember when I first decided to take the lsat my goal was to break a 160, then I joined TLS....

And look at you now! :D Congrats on the break through, good timing too, headed into the test on an upswing!

insidethetwenty
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:00 pm

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

Postby insidethetwenty » Fri Sep 18, 2009 2:21 pm

PT 47:

LR1: -5 (ouch)
RC: -3
LR2: -3
LG: -2 (-0 on circuits, though!)

Raw: 87/Scaled: 167

I would like to have done better on this test, however both LG misses were stupid mistakes and I also saw one on RC that I should've changed, but time ran out on me before I could unbubble/rebubble. Probably 4/8 I missed on LR were the same type of *facepalm* mistakes.

Like many of you, I'm sure, the "facepalm factor" will probably be the difference between a shiny 17x and a 167-169.

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

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

Postby lawduder » Fri Sep 18, 2009 2:55 pm

PT54

RC -6 (lol, groupthink.)
LR -6
LG -0
LR -3

raw 87
scaled 166

How lame it feels to go backward this close to test day..

User avatar
MBZags
Posts: 552
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 5:21 pm

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

Postby MBZags » Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:19 pm

^ I hear you on the groupthink passage. I missed 4 out of 8 on it.

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

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

Postby lawduder » Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:21 pm

MBZags wrote:^ I hear you on the groupthink passage. I missed 4 out of 8 on it.

yeah, I missed 4 as well :?

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

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

Postby Kulax22 » Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:54 pm

I'm taking PT57 tomorrow... and I post here to psyche myself up and get my anticipation going... stay tuned :mrgreen:

User avatar
soupisgood
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 2:21 am

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

Postby soupisgood » Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:35 am

PT 56

LG: -1
LR1: -4
LR2: -3
RC: -3

Raw: 89
Scaled: 170

Can someone please explain LR1 #20 and why C is wrong? Thanks!

User avatar
deek
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 7:20 pm

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

Postby deek » Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:19 am

soupisgood wrote:PT 56

LG: -1
LR1: -4
LR2: -3
RC: -3

Raw: 89
Scaled: 170

Can someone please explain LR1 #20 and why C is wrong? Thanks!


There's a subtle difference between C and E: C says "might be less than high quality," while E says "makes it unlikely to be of high quality." Assuming C doesn't help the argument too much, because even some clinical psychotherapy settings could be "less than high quality." maybe not most clinical settings, but some of them could...

E, however, is stronger because it wants to ban settings that are "unlikely" to be of high quality, which the passage says is the case for talk shows.

User avatar
soupisgood
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 2:21 am

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

Postby soupisgood » Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:57 am

deek wrote:
soupisgood wrote:PT 56

LG: -1
LR1: -4
LR2: -3
RC: -3

Raw: 89
Scaled: 170

Can someone please explain LR1 #20 and why C is wrong? Thanks!


There's a subtle difference between C and E: C says "might be less than high quality," while E says "makes it unlikely to be of high quality." Assuming C doesn't help the argument too much, because even some clinical psychotherapy settings could be "less than high quality." maybe not most clinical settings, but some of them could...

E, however, is stronger because it wants to ban settings that are "unlikely" to be of high quality, which the passage says is the case for talk shows.


Ahhh ok. Thanks for the help!

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

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

Postby 02082010 » Sat Sep 19, 2009 12:50 pm

:evil: FURIOUS.

PT56 this morning with no experimental but just went straight through the four sections to give me self the fatigue feeling.

-1LG, -2LR, -2LR, -4RC

Raw: 91
Scaled: 172

Pissed since this is my last PT before test day and is my lowest score in the last 5 PTs. LR was disastrous bc I have been maxing out at -2 combined and RC was an epic fail bc I made some dumb mistakes of overlooking on the comparative passage about Roma ppl. :evil:

The rest of today will be a football day and I will spend tomorrow and all of the subsequent days until the test ironing out little mistakes.

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

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

Postby Bustang » Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:00 pm

PT 54 can blow me. That hard of RC with a -10 curve? Jesus F'ing Christ.

RC: -8
LR1:-2
Games:-3(ran out of time. I found these difficult, as well).
LR2:-2

Raw 86, Scaled 165.

I'm not worried at all. That test was fucking brutal.

Doxide
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:33 pm

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

Postby Doxide » Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:10 pm

I just did PT 54 as well. RC owned me.

Got -6. 3 mistakes were on the groupthink passage. Can anyone tell me if this particular RC was harder than usual? I'm so frustrated. I used to average -2 or -3 on RC, but in the recent tests I've been averaging -7. It's like the LSAT just spat in my face at the last second. Before these new RC sections I was set for a 170.

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

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

Postby lawduder » Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:13 pm

Doxide wrote:I just did PT 54 as well. RC owned me.

Got -6. 3 mistakes were on the groupthink passage. Can anyone tell me if this particular RC was harder than usual? I'm so frustrated. I used to average -2 or -3 on RC, but in the recent tests I've been averaging -7. It's like the LSAT just spat in my face at the last second. Before these new RC sections I was set for a 170.

groupthinkkkkkkkkkk!!!!! I've been getting -4 pretty consistently on RC and I went -6 here.

User avatar
visualpurple
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 6:37 pm

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

Postby visualpurple » Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:51 pm

I've broken 170 twice (171 and 175), and it felt great. Hoping I can pull it off again in a week.

User avatar
kurama20
Posts: 675
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 5:04 pm

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

Postby kurama20 » Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:57 pm

Dec 07: 172
June 08: 170
Oct 08: 168
June 09: 166
Sept 09: ??????

I"m dropping exactly 2 points per test!!!! :(

User avatar
Stanford4Me
Posts: 6043
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:23 am

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

Postby Stanford4Me » Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:00 pm

PT 56:

LG: -8 (LG will be my only focus for the next week)
LR: -4
LR: -2
RC: -3
Raw: 83

165.

I should have probably been focusing on Logic Games a lot earlier...well not probably, definitely. They're killing me.

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

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

Postby missvik218 » Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:25 pm

Stanford4Me wrote:PT 56:

LG: -8 (LG will be my only focus for the next week)
LR: -4
LR: -2
RC: -3
Raw: 83

165.

I should have probably been focusing on Logic Games a lot earlier...well not probably, definitely. They're killing me.

I also found that to be a difficult LG section, and LG is usually my best section. I only missed 2, but I was unsure and really had to force the questions though, hypos for almost everything. So don't stress too badly about it being a toughie, but yeah, drilling those games will only help!

Edit to add my results for PT 56.

LG -2
LR -5 (OUCH!)
I started this last night @ 7PM after a long day at work ... I stopped after this section because I knew I wasn't concentrating and was doing really crappy; I resumed this afternoon at approximately 3PM.
LR -2
RC -3

Raw +88
Scaled 168 ... :x :( here's hoping tomorrow and Wednesday help me build some positive momentum going into Saturday.

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

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

Postby Kulax22 » Sat Sep 19, 2009 4:52 pm

Ugh I just posted a separate thread because I wanted max help...

But to inform everyone I went from 178 (pt52) to 161 (pt57). Some of it was simply me and my nerves, but I was freaked out by the difficulty of 57. Hoping it was, at the end of the day, my subjective perception only :|




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], bearedman8, Gumbocat and 9 guests