June 2011 Study Group Forum

[Manash]

Haven't found the time to post in a while. I've definitely gotten more comfortable with the test in my last 3 PTs. Took PT 39 on 4/12 - 170 ;

-----------------------
PT 42 on 4/20:
Sec 1 - LG - 23/23
Sec 2 - LR1 - 26/26
Sec 3 - RC - 18/26 - EXP
Sec 4 - RC - 22/26
Sec 5 - LR2 - 23/26

94 pts = 174

Felt comfortable. Silly mistakes in LR2 but RC was the only problem here.

-----------------------
PT 45 on 4/21:
Sec 1 - LR1 - 26/26
Sec 2 - RC - 23/27
Sec 3 - LG - 22/22
Sec 4 - RC - 22/26 - EXP
Sec 5 - LR2 - 22/25

93 pts = 176

A generous curve. Need to tweak up RC but it's all coming together. Finally appearing to have gotten over the LG hump. If I can work on my conditioning in the second half of the test and fix RC accordingly, I really think I have a shot at staying in the upper 170's and maybe even hitting 180 on future PTs.

-----------------------

PT Score Spread:
01.(PT 34) 168, 02.(PT 35) 165, 03.(PT 36) 169, 04.(PT 37) 171, 05.(PT 39) 170,
06.(PT 42) 174, 07.(PT 45) 176, 08.(PT 46)

[geverett]

Just back from a wedding in San Diego. Studied lightly while I was there, but now I'm taking my dog for a walk and getting back to it. Also, since I was out of town I couldn't get to the manhattan workshop last night. Does anybody have the time to go over it in the study room with me today?

[geverett]

Ready to move out of this hipster neighborhood. People can't quit playing instruments during all hours of the day and night.

[pkpop]

Also, since I was out of town I couldn't get to the manhattan workshop last night. Does anybody have the time to go over it in the study room with me today?

Gev, I'll be on in about a half hour. We can go over some of the things they mentioned then.

[Eichörnchen]

Ready to move out of this hipster neighborhood. People can't quit playing instruments during all hours of the day and night.

Ooh that would be so annoying. I hope they're at least good

[geverett]

Also, since I was out of town I couldn't get to the manhattan workshop last night. Does anybody have the time to go over it in the study room with me today?

Gev, I'll be on in about a half hour. We can go over some of the things they mentioned then.

I just saw this. I'm in the room right now if you want to join. I'll just be going over one of my PT's until you can come in to explain complex flaw questions.

[geverett]

Ready to move out of this hipster neighborhood. People can't quit playing instruments during all hours of the day and night.

Ooh that would be so annoying. I hope they're at least good

They are average.

[jim-green]

Just completed PT49. man, it was not easy. PT48 was better. The LGs on PT49 seemed harder, maybe because I mis-diagrammed a rule on the last LG and had to scramble with 5 min to go to re-diagram and then try to complete the questions.

[FloridaCoastalorbust]

Hey peeps, spent my weekend in Arkansas and escaped the tornadoes unscathed. Finished PT 24. I had seen a game, a passage, and a few LRs so I'm not putting too much into it. Btw, its pretty funny to look at my bubble sheet for both LRs. Almost always, all the wrong ACs are in the range of 17-23. You think I'd have learned something by now

RC 25/27
LR1 21/25
LR2 23/26
LG 22/23

Raw 91 Scaled 17tree. I've been drilling LR like a madman lately, and am still neglecting RC. I'm an idiot

[coldshoulder]

PT 33
LG 23/23 (-0)
LR 1 23/25 (-2)
RC 25/28 (-3)
LR 2 23/25 (-2)
-7 total
94/101
176

Hell yeah. Did better than usual on LR, found the games to be almost all sequencing and very easy, but the RC killed me.

[FloridaCoastalorbust]

PT 33
LG 23/23 (-0)
LR 1 23/25 (-2)
RC 25/28 (-3)
LR 2 23/25 (-2)
-7 total
94/101
176

Hell yeah. Did better than usual on LR, found the games to be almost all sequencing and very easy, but the RC killed me.

psh just had to go and steal my thunder

[FloridaCoastalorbust]

PS any other squash players on here? I'm gonna need a partner when we are all up at New Haven

[FloridaCoastalorbust]

PPS sry for the cloggage. I have a couple questions

PT24 S3 Q19 (assumption)
Is the statement (TCR) "some students who do not go home for lunch have part-time jobs" equivalent to "some students with part time jobs do not go home for lunch?"

PT24 S3 Q20 (principle)

The question stem makes us look for an AC that justifies the reasoning and places the least restriction on extra funds. I understand that TCR justifies the reasoning, but wouldn't "disposing of the funds according to the express wishes of the donors" place restrictions on the allocation of funds by directors of charitable organizations?

[Eichörnchen]

PS any other squash players on here? I'm gonna need a partner when we are all up at New Haven

Haha nope, you'll have to teach me (but we don't have to worry bout that unless I start pulling out some mid-170s scores like you) <- there is some thunder given back to you

[xjykybl]

Just did PT 50.
RC: -3
LG: -1
LR1:-2
LR2:-2
Raw: -8
Scaled: 172

The reading is a bit tricky. Got one silly mistake in LG.
It took me less than 30 min to finish the first LR, but I spent full 35min working on the second LR. Looking forward to my first -0 in LR. When I review my wrong LR questions, it's always like "how come I was so silly to choose this wrong answer. The right one is just so obvious". I guess it's something fundamental in my reasoning that I need to work on, because I very often get tricked by questions in 1-10, which are supposed to be very easy.

[geverett]

Just did PT 50.
RC: -3
LG: -1
LR1:-2
LR2:-2
Raw: -8
Scaled: 172

The reading is a bit tricky. Got one silly mistake in LG.
It took me less than 30 min to finish the first LR, but I spent full 35min working on the second LR. Looking forward to my first -0 in LR. When I review my wrong LR questions, it's always like "how come I was so silly to choose this wrong answer. The right one is just so obvious". I guess it's something fundamental in my reasoning that I need to work on, because I very often get tricked by questions in 1-10, which are supposed to be very easy.

Same thing here. I always get questions wrong in the first 10 and I've been using the method of going back over the test untimed after finishing it, and i always find like 2 questions in the first 10 that are complete no brainers, but that I somehow get wrong. I have yet to break the 170, but I feel like tomorrow could be my day. godspeed friend.

[geverett]

PPS sry for the cloggage. I have a couple questions

PT24 S3 Q19 (assumption)
Is the statement (TCR) "some students who do not go home for lunch have part-time jobs" equivalent to "some students with part time jobs do not go home for lunch?"

PT24 S3 Q20 (principle)

The question stem makes us look for an AC that justifies the reasoning and places the least restriction on extra funds. I understand that TCR justifies the reasoning, but wouldn't "disposing of the funds according to the express wishes of the donors" place restrictions on the allocation of funds by directors of charitable organizations?

Not sure about the 2nd one. The first one is a formal logical problem that goes something like this.

Premise: Student who walks to school ------> Go home for lunch
Contra: ~Go home for lunch-------------> ~Student who walks to school

Conclusion: Student w/ part time job -----some-----> ~Walk to school

The term "some" in formal logic is reversible so if some students with part time jobs do not walk to school it follows also that some students who do not walk to school have part time jobs. So this is how this would all link up

The contrapositive of the premise with the assumption attached to it allows us to get to our conclusion:

Students w/ part time jobs <--------some--------> ~Go home for lunch ------>~Students who walk to school

Keeping in mind that some is reversible statement we can come to the conclusion by attaching the assumption to the contrapositive that some students with part time jobs do not walk to school. Do not know if that makes sense or not. Would love to hear an explanation for the other one.

[xjykybl]

PPS sry for the cloggage. I have a couple questions

PT24 S3 Q19 (assumption)
Is the statement (TCR) "some students who do not go home for lunch have part-time jobs" equivalent to "some students with part time jobs do not go home for lunch?"

PT24 S3 Q20 (principle)

The question stem makes us look for an AC that justifies the reasoning and places the least restriction on extra funds. I understand that TCR justifies the reasoning, but wouldn't "disposing of the funds according to the express wishes of the donors" place restrictions on the allocation of funds by directors of charitable organizations?

Not sure about the 2nd one. The first one is a formal logical problem that goes something like this.

Premise: Student who walks to school ------> Go home for lunch
Contra: ~Go home for lunch-------------> ~Student who walks to school

Conclusion: Student w/ part time job -----some-----> ~Walk to school

The term "some" in formal logic is reversible so if some students with part time jobs do not walk to school it follows also that some students who do not walk to school have part time jobs. So this is how this would all link up

The contrapositive of the premise with the assumption attached to it allows us to get to our conclusion:

Students w/ part time jobs <--------some--------> ~Go home for lunch ------>~Students who walk to school

Keeping in mind that some is reversible statement we can come to the conclusion by attaching the assumption to the contrapositive that some students with part time jobs do not walk to school. Do not know if that makes sense or not. Would love to hear an explanation for the other one.

Nice analysis of the contrapositive of "some"!
As for 20, "disposing of the funds according to the express wishes of the donors" corresponds to the last sentence of the stem. The principle need to first satisfy the conditions in the stem.

[soj]

Ugh, extremely annoyed.

PT44
RC: -5
RCe (PT41): -1
LR1: -3
LG: -0
LR2: -3
Raw: -11
Scaled: 169

This is what happens when you bomb both RC and LR. And worst of all, I actually thought I did pretty well in LR. I'm hoping this is a fluke. Maybe it's because I took the PT at night.

PT41 composite
LR1(4/21): -1
LG(4/22): -1
LR2(4/24): -0
RC(4/26): -1
Raw: -3
Scaled: 179

I know I should be ecstatic about this, but PT44 depression is overwhelming. Whatever, I need to put things in perspective. -11 isn't the worst I've done. The tough curve screwed me over on the scaled score, but I should be focusing on raw.

I'm up and down with experimentals. I don't put much stock in my -1 in RC because I'd seen all the passages before. I didn't remember the Qs, but knowledge must have helped.

I'm just going to have to work harder I guess.

[crumpetsandtea]

Just took 48 with a LR -2/-1, RC -3, LG -0 breakdown for a disappointing 172 IDK why but I thought that -6 would give me a better score than that and I was soooooooo excited...then disappointed. BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH.

Y'all, we're almost there. 1 month left!!!

[FloridaCoastalorbust]

How's this for inconsistency: PT 30 LG -0, PT 31 LG -8.

I must say that PT 31 is the hardest LG I've come across so far. 3/4 games were difficult, especially 2 and 4. Hey, at least LG have gotten easier over the years

Edit: My 180th post. How ironic

[jim-green]

How's this for inconsistency: PT 30 LG -0, PT 31 LG -8.
I must say that PT 31 is the hardest LG I've come across so far. 3/4 games were difficult, especially 2 and 4. Hey, at least LG have gotten easier over the years

Yes, the PT31 LGs are hard, at least for me.

[jim-green]

Ugh, extremely annoyed.
PT44
RC: -5
RCe (PT41): -1
LR1: -3
LG: -0
LR2: -3
Raw: -11
Scaled: 169

Had you seen any of the questions before?

[Eichörnchen]

Ugh, extremely annoyed.

PT44
RC: -5
RCe (PT41): -1
LR1: -3
LG: -0
LR2: -3
Raw: -11
Scaled: 169

This is what happens when you bomb both RC and LR. And worst of all, I actually thought I did pretty well in LR. I'm hoping this is a fluke. Maybe it's because I took the PT at night.

PT41 composite
LR1(4/21): -1
LG(4/22): -1
LR2(4/24): -0
RC(4/26): -1
Raw: -3
Scaled: 179

I know I should be ecstatic about this, but PT44 depression is overwhelming. Whatever, I need to put things in perspective. -11 isn't the worst I've done. The tough curve screwed me over on the scaled score, but I should be focusing on raw.

I'm up and down with experimentals. I don't put much stock in my -1 in RC because I'd seen all the passages before. I didn't remember the Qs, but knowledge must have helped.

I'm just going to have to work harder I guess.

Soj, I think the fact that you got a 179 on the very next PT makes it pretty obvious that 169 was a fluke. Everyone has them and they suck, bet hey at least your fluke drop is a score that I would accept as a regular score Dont let it sap your excitement about that 179!

[jim-green]

Any retakers here who have taken the same PT with a few months between them, and can share about score differences (I mean on the PTs)? I am not doing as well as i thought I would when repeating PTs after 3 months. My score goes up just 5 points or so, and it's because I remember the questions I got wrong earlier. If one retakes a PT, should the 2nd score be close to perfect?

Oh and Eich, I had a dental filling this morning, so I am not quite at, but close to, your electrodes experience. Hopefully, my PT scores will improve as much as yours now. If not, I may try babysitting to help.