On Track for the June 2010 LSAT -- Refractory Period Forum

[Knock]

Took PT 53 today, and wow it was tough! went -2 LR -0 LG -2 LR -3 RC for 93 raw/174 scaled. Pretty disappointing test...although as soon as I started on the first section I realized that this was a tough test. A little bummed, these newer tests I seem to average a lower score . I need to get back up to 175+!

53 -- 05/20/10 ----- -2 LR -0 LG -2 LR -3 RC ------ 93/174 ----- 5 sections, w/ 9.2 as 3rd experimental

Oh wow. Just realized we took the same PT! You didn't find the games devastatingly brutal? Oh my, I have to go back and review when I'm done here. But I thought it was the hardest games I've seen in the newer tests. Like I said, you are in another league than me as a test-taker. I scored higher in an LR section though

Hey congrats man! that's awesome! which LR section was it? I'm gonna guess that it was the 2nd one, I thought the first one was harder, but it might have been because I wasn't warmed up yet.

Yeah the games were pretty hard. 2 sequencing games of some form if I remember correctly. Sequencing are my weakest games too pretty much, so they were tough for me. 2 sequencing LG is pretty much a "worst-case" scenario for me. I think the PT I took yesterday had 2 sequencing games as well. I thought about trying Atlas LSAT's sequencing method, but I don't know if I want to completely switch up my technique this close to the test.

I thought the RC on this PT was pretty tough too. How did you do on that and the other sections?

Congrats again on the -0. That is a great feeling, and a definite confidence booster; especially if you did it on tough LR sections like this test.

[BigA]

Took PT 53 today, and wow it was tough! went -2 LR -0 LG -2 LR -3 RC for 93 raw/174 scaled. Pretty disappointing test...although as soon as I started on the first section I realized that this was a tough test. A little bummed, these newer tests I seem to average a lower score . I need to get back up to 175+!

53 -- 05/20/10 ----- -2 LR -0 LG -2 LR -3 RC ------ 93/174 ----- 5 sections, w/ 9.2 as 3rd experimental

Oh wow. Just realized we took the same PT! You didn't find the games devastatingly brutal? Oh my, I have to go back and review when I'm done here. But I thought it was the hardest games I've seen in the newer tests. Like I said, you are in another league than me as a test-taker. I scored higher in an LR section though

Hey congrats man! that's awesome! which LR section was it? I'm gonna guess that it was the 2nd one, I thought the first one was harder, but it might have been because I wasn't warmed up yet.

Yeah the games were pretty hard. 2 sequencing games of some form if I remember correctly. Sequencing are my weakest games too pretty much, so they were tough for me. 2 sequencing LG is pretty much a "worst-case" scenario for me. I think the PT I took yesterday had 2 sequencing games as well. I thought about trying Atlas LSAT's sequencing method, but I don't know if I want to completely switch up my technique this close to the test.

I thought the RC on this PT was pretty tough too. How did you do on that and the other sections?

Congrats again on the -0. That is a great feeling, and a definite confidence booster; especially if you did it on tough LR sections like this test.

Thanks, but didn't you see how I qualified it? The rest was terrible. Yeah, I nailed the second LR section. Felt like the easiest LR I've done out of the newer tests. My games section was a total disaster. I thought I nailed the first game in great time, but got two wrong somehow. Then I was pleased to see this nice sequencing game. But then it broke into 4 possibilities I think! I was shitting. Then I don't remember what happened. I gotta go back to see what I did even. But it was bad. Yeah, the -0 in LR was great tho

Hmmn, that -0 was a "worst case scenario" for you? I really hate you

[BigA]

P.S. it's funny you mentioned that you hadn't warmed up yet. I JUST made a thread about this.

And oh, you really need to change your method for sequencing if that's your weakest type. I was getting so fed up with drawing multiple dotted lines and erasing my diagram so much So one night I decided to practice Kaplan's method of just drawing simple lines to designate the orders. I had this down in about 30 minutes. Might be the same as Atlas. Not sure, but I like it. I determined that this one sequencing game (I forget exactly, but somewhere in the 40s) was actually undiagrammable using the Powerscore method. It's terrible.

[Knock]

P.S. it's funny you mentioned that you hadn't warmed up yet. I JUST made a thread about this.

And oh, you really need to change your method for sequencing if that's your weakest type. I was getting so fed up with drawing multiple dotted lines and erasing my diagram so much So one night I decided to practice Kaplan's method of just drawing simple lines to designate the orders. I had this down in about 30 minutes. Might be the same as Atlas. Not sure, but I like it. I determined that this one sequencing game (I forget exactly, but somewhere in the 40s) was actually undiagrammable using the Powerscore method. It's terrible.

Thanks, i'm going to take you up on your advice and check it out tomorrow, after I take my PT. I've definitely found a few games that had hefty and convoluted diagrams, I think a game from PT 51 was one that stood out in my mind.

[Knock]

Alright, wtf happened here on PT 13. This was probably the most perplexing PT i've had. I went -0 LG -6 LR (?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?) (experimental section 9.3 -1 LG) -1 RC -0 LR for 94 raw and 176 curved. DEFINITELY a generous curve compared to the newer tests. I was grading the sections as I was going along, so when I got the -6, at first I thought I was reading answers from the wrong answer key, then I thought that I must've misbubbled somewhere, then it sunk in that I really had just dropped a -6 on a LR section, tied for my worst LR section with my 4th PT ever taken (excluding my diagnostic, which included a -7 LR section). I then was bummed for a long time, and really lethargic and slow on the experimental section. I thought that this test would end up giving me my first score in the 160's in a couple months. Somehow, I ended up doing really well on all the other sections, and benefited from an awesome curve, -14. Hopefully I got this out of my system before the big day.

Summary:
13 -- 05/21/10 ----- -0 LG -6 LR -1 RC -0 LR ------ 94/176 ----- 5 sections, w/ 9.3 as 3rd experimental

[maxm2764]

Thank you, I knew that PT 53 was significantly difficult. Did the RC seem unusually difficult to you guys or did I just drop the ball on that section?

[BigA]

Thank you, I knew that PT 53 was significantly difficult. Did the RC seem unusually difficult to you guys or did I just drop the ball on that section?

RC was probably about average I thought. After reviewing that games section I still think that was a really tough one especially for newer tests. Though I shouldn't have bombed it as badly as I did. I made a tiny mistake in the first game, assuming W couldn't be in one place on one option. That cost me 2 points (out of 5). It's what I get by gambling and not checking all the answer choices on games. I've decided to do that though, since it's my only chance of getting through all the games. I'm not going for a mediocre score.

Then in the second game I thought I was being really smart my diagramming all 4 sequences that came from those OR rules. But turns out that was a big mistake. It took forever not only to diagram, but then to put the answer choices to each option. Then I made a mistake while doing it to boot.

Then you had to make pretty big deductions in game 3, which I didn't make being pressed on time. I thought it was a nice linear game until they threw in that curveball of confessing. Game 4 wasn't a picnic either

[maxm2764]

Man, I don't know what it was about that RC but it killed my score. I was on track for a 164-165 but that section kept me at 160. The games seemed a little different but I've been doing pretty well in games recently so I missed three I think. The deductions in those were definitely crucial for success in that section. Regardless, it's RC and LG practice for me tomorrow before a PT on Sunday.

[BigA]

Alright, wtf happened here on PT 13. This was probably the most perplexing PT i've had. I went -0 LG -6 LR (?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?) (experimental section 9.3 -1 LG) -1 RC -0 LR for 94 raw and 176 curved. DEFINITELY a generous curve compared to the newer tests. I was grading the sections as I was going along, so when I got the -6, at first I thought I was reading answers from the wrong answer key, then I thought that I must've misbubbled somewhere, then it sunk in that I really had just dropped a -6 on a LR section, tied for my worst LR section with my 4th PT ever taken (excluding my diagnostic, which included a -7 LR section). I then was bummed for a long time, and really lethargic and slow on the experimental section. I thought that this test would end up giving me my first score in the 160's in a couple months. Somehow, I ended up doing really well on all the other sections, and benefited from an awesome curve, -14. Hopefully I got this out of my system before the big day.

Summary:
13 -- 05/21/10 ----- -0 LG -6 LR -1 RC -0 LR ------ 94/176 ----- 5 sections, w/ 9.3 as 3rd experimental

I would have thought we'd all score much higher on older tests. We are graded on the same curve, but we have the advantages of the PS Bibles and 60 PTs. I'm surprised your scores seem pretty even across the older and newer tests.

I can't really speak for myself since I didn't take many of the older ones as timed PTs. However, I took two PTs before I did any studying -- the sample June 2007 test and PT 9 (the first test in 10 Actual... was written in). I improved 11 points on PT 9. Looking back, I don't even know how I did that well. I could only do 3 RC passages then, and got through 19 LR questions in one section. I attributed it to being older. The curve was just really low. In fact, I took a PT fairly recently that was lower than that score, which is disturbing. So you should do PT 9, and see how it goes

[BigA]

Man, I don't know what it was about that RC but it killed my score. I was on track for a 164-165 but that section kept me at 160. The games seemed a little different but I've been doing pretty well in games recently so I missed three I think. The deductions in those were definitely crucial for success in that section. Regardless, it's RC and LG practice for me tomorrow before a PT on Sunday.

What do you do for RC practice? I decided tonight I'm just gonna do three straight sections of RC and see how it goes. Never done that before.

[maxm2764]

I just do one or two timed sections in a row and then review them like I do LR. It's usually a section that I do pretty well in so I've been focusing much more on LR and LG. Looks like it may need a little bit of work so I'll give it some serious practice tomorrow and see where it gets me. I've never done three sections in a row, but it definitely isn't a bad idea since the real deal is four in a row. I feel like RC is the most subjective part of this test so I'm not too sure how much studying can or will help, but it's worth a shot I guess.

[vampy]

I did basically the same thing you did, keeping track of every test I took. Its very difficult to improve once you are consistently in the mid 170's but I do think that the continued practice is helpful in reducing variance. Also, in about 3 months you will feel a lot smarter as your mind finishing building neural networks. So if you need to retake the test...

[Knock]

I did basically the same thing you did, keeping track of every test I took. Its very difficult to improve once you are consistently in the mid 170's but I do think that the continued practice is helpful in reducing variance. Also, in about 3 months you will feel a lot smarter as your mind finishing building neural networks. So if you need to retake the test...

Interesting lol, I didn't know that. Can you point me towards more information about this?

---

Took PT 54 today (I was going to take June '07, but I put the wrong test on my flash drive to print out at the library; luckily, I realize that i'm often a dumbass, and I grabbed PT 54 on my way out as a back-up in case I encountered some technology issues with printing out June '07). Felt like it was pretty hard PT, and I was thoroughly surprised when I finished grading to end up with a 179. I was thinking mid to low 170's. So goes to show you never really know. Went -2 RC (did the semi-infamous "cakewalk" passage, thought it was pretty challenging, and I missed one; missed the other on the last passage about groupthink due to running low on time and having to rush) (-3 LR; experimental section from PT 9.4; people were talking relatively loudly near me and it was frustrating me and pissing me off, I had trouble completely concentrating and getting into a rhythm. Why the fuck do people go to the quiet study floor to talk?!?! it seriously bugs the shit out of me. There are multiple other floors you can go to if you want to work in groups and talk; be fucking respectful of the people who want quiet to focus and study; after this section I had to move to a different part of the floor where I could have relative peace and quiet, i.e. not having people carrying on a conversation for an entire section). After I moved I realize now that I really got into a good rhythm, and went -0 LR -0 LG (finished this with 5+ minutes; actually had like 10+ minutes for the last few questions, but one of them took me a while) and then -1 LR (this was a sloppy mistake, one of the early questions). So overall, was pleasantly surprised with how this PT turned out.

Summary:
09 -- 05/25/10 ----- -0 RC -2 LR -1 LG -3 LR ------ 95/177 ----- experimental test
54 -- 05/25/10 ----- -2 RC -0 LR -0 LG -1 LR ------ 98/179 ----- 5 sections, w/ 9.4 as 2nd experimental

[granger]

I think it's incredible that you've taken 45 PTs, and obviously it's paying off. Thumbs up.

[b4uu4b]

i've been seeing this for a while now and in terms of scores, i've got roughly similar scores with occasional deviations in either direction... ... i realized that you seem to do better on recent LR sections then on older ones ... i experience the same thing - on older tests i used to/usually go -2/-3 all up whereas on new tests i usually go -0/-1 all up ... i feel that while the stems have roughly been the same, the answer choices often seem more glaring ... what do you think about this?

i was supposed to 54 today but was a bit too tired when i got back from work so i guess i'll take it tomorrow evening

[redsox]

45 tests. Wow. I'm at 7. Hoping to make it to 15.

[JasonR]

Hopefully I got this out of my system before the big day.

Slightly bizarre thing to say about a performance that resulted in a 176.

[Knock]

Hopefully I got this out of my system before the big day.

Slightly bizarre thing to say about a performance that resulted in a 176.

Well, I was talking more about a really fluke sloppy LR section. My 2nd worst LR section. And it's kind of weird cuz I just must've brainfarted that LR, because on the 2nd LR section for that test I got -0. To me it isn't so much about the score, it's about the process, because only one score matters, and that's the actual one.

Edit: And the 176 was only because of a generous curve.

I think it's incredible that you've taken 45 PTs, and obviously it's paying off. Thumbs up.

Thanks a lot man. I really appreciate it!

i've been seeing this for a while now and in terms of scores, i've got roughly similar scores with occasional deviations in either direction... ... i realized that you seem to do better on recent LR sections then on older ones ... i experience the same thing - on older tests i used to/usually go -2/-3 all up whereas on new tests i usually go -0/-1 all up ... i feel that while the stems have roughly been the same, the answer choices often seem more glaring ... what do you think about this?

i was supposed to 54 today but was a bit too tired when i got back from work so i guess i'll take it tomorrow evening

Hmm. I'm not sure. The older PT's definitely have some funky LR questions that trick me, and some of the two question stimulus' can be difficult.

[Knock]

Took the June '07 PT today. Went -1 LG (doh, a little rule misinterpretation here tricked me), (experimental section -0 LR on PT 10.1) -0 LR (feeling great about LR up to this point when i'm grading the PT), -3 LR (fuck!!!, blew it), -2 RC (ehhh, could be better, but i'm not sweating it too much; it's hard to get a consistent -0, so it really just depends on the passages) for 94 raw, 172 scaled. Really really harsh curve, definitely the harshest one i've ever done, especially since this was a fairly difficult PT. -8 (92 raw since there were only 100 questions) only got you a 170. In comparison, a PT I took last week I got 94 raw for a 176 scaled, and usually I'd expect a 94 raw to get me ~174. Anyways, pretty disappointed about that LG mistake. That one miss dropped me from a 174 to a 172, and it's my first miss on a recent LG in a while. Definitely disappointed with the -3 LR though, one of them was a mis-read, the other too i'm not sure I need to check. I wonder if having 3 LR in a row made me a little LR'd out for the last section. Gonna take PT 55 tomorrow, heard it's a doozy. We'll see how I do, but I'm expecting a significant rebound from this score. I haven't scored this low in over a month (had a 172 on April 22nd; 26 PT's ago); and that was my only score that low since April 7th, when I got a 170 on my 9th PT, 37 PT's ago. Not the greatest thing to happen to me with less than 2 weeks to go until the test, but hopefully got this out of my system, and i'll start an upswing that will last until June 7th.

Anyways, summary:
J'07 - 05/26/10 ----- -1 LG -0 LR -3 LR -2 RC ------ 94/172 ----- 5 sections, w/ 10.1 as 2nd experimental

Edit: Also, I saw a blood drive van on campus today, and I tried to go give blood in the 10 minutes I had before class, because the LSAT is in less than 2 weeks and I want to get as much good karma as possible in hopes that the universe rewards me (or at least doesn't try and fuck me). Thought that this was pretty funny, i'm sure a lot of you guys are probably doing the same haha

[Mike12188]

Took the June '07 PT today. Went -1 LG (doh, a little rule misinterpretation here tricked me), (experimental section -0 LR on PT 10.1) -0 LR (feeling great about LR up to this point when i'm grading the PT), -3 LR (fuck!!!, blew it), -2 RC (ehhh, could be better, but i'm not sweating it too much; it's hard to get a consistent -0, so it really just depends on the passages) for 94 raw, 172 scaled. Really really harsh curve, definitely the harshest one i've ever done, especially since this was a fairly difficult PT. -8 (92 raw since there were only 100 questions) only got you a 170. In comparison, a PT I took last week I got 94 raw for a 176 scaled, and usually I'd expect a 94 raw to get me ~174. Anyways, pretty disappointed about that LG mistake. That one miss dropped me from a 174 to a 172, and it's my first miss on a recent LG in a while. Definitely disappointed with the -3 LR though, one of them was a mis-read, the other too i'm not sure I need to check. I wonder if having 3 LR in a row made me a little LR'd out for the last section. Gonna take PT 55 tomorrow, heard it's a doozy. We'll see how I do, but I'm expecting a significant rebound from this score. I haven't scored this low in over a month (had a 172 on April 22nd; 26 PT's ago); and that was my only score that low since April 7th, when I got a 170 on my 9th PT, 37 PT's ago. Not the greatest thing to happen to me with less than 2 weeks to go until the test, but hopefully got this out of my system, and i'll start an upswing that will last until June 7th.

Anyways, summary:
J'07 - 05/26/10 ----- -1 LG -0 LR -3 LR -2 RC ------ 94/172 ----- 5 sections, w/ 10.1 as 2nd experimental

I went -1 on that LG too because I read a rule wrong. For some reason on the Thurs, Fri, Sat game I was under the assumption that each day had two lectures/seminars and none could have three. At least it only cost me a point, but still I don't know why I was thinking that. Maybe because I was doing it at the beach.

[JasonR]

Edit: And the 176 was only because of a generous curve.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. The test isn't curved, in any case. But, sticking with that terminology, a "generous curve" is only in place because the test was statistically harder than other tests with less generous "curves."

A 176 is a 176.

[Knock]

Edit: And the 176 was only because of a generous curve.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. The test isn't curved, in any case. But, sticking with that terminology, a "generous curve" is only in place because the test was statistically harder than other tests with less generous "curves."

A 176 is a 176.

Alright dude, I'm not going to argue semantics...we know what I meant. And no, the older tests have much more generous curves then than the newer ones.

[OklahomasOK]

Edit: And the 176 was only because of a generous curve.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. The test isn't curved, in any case. But, sticking with that terminology, a "generous curve" is only in place because the test was statistically harder than other tests with less generous "curves."

A 176 is a 176.

Alright dude, I'm not going to argue semantics...we know what I meant. And no, the older tests have much more generous curves then than the newer ones.

I just broke into taking tests in the 50's and I'm really shocked at the stinginess of the curves. I feel like the LR/ LG is about the same, but the RC is much more difficult and many questions out to trick someone not paying attention. I thought my 90 raw score was pretty good on 50/51, but it's just keeping me in the 170's. On an older test a 90 raw would put me above 172.

[Knock]

Plus the older tests were score equated when there were fewer prep tests available to study off of (and possibly classes too).

[JasonR]

And no, the older tests have much more generous curves then than the newer ones.

Who said they didn't? This simple truth doesn't call into question anything I've written. The fact that you think it does simply shows that you don't understand very well how the scaled scores are determined/what they represent. Not that you really have to.

Again, a "generous curve" is only in place because a given test was statistically harder than other tests with less generous "curves."

Plus the older tests were score equated when there were fewer prep tests available to study off of (and possibly classes too).

Immaterial, really. All tests are equated to the June 1991 baseline.