October 2010 Test Prep Forum

[Chris_cpb]

Quick question:

Is the June 2005 (PT 46) LG section considered to be super easy?

[stargazin]

I didn't think it was.

[Chris_cpb]

I didn't think it was.

Do you feel like this section lacked certain aspects that more recent sections have?

[JJDancer]

eit: If another -14 means another test like #59, NO. I'll settle for a -12 and nothing that kicks my brain into tiny pieces of puddles.

+10000000000

I seem to score -6 on tests that have a -12 curve. Seem to score -13 on tests that have a -13/-14 curve.

PT 58 today
Original score: -13 = 168
TODAY: -9 = 171

meh. Not fabulous but not bad and I would be fine with a 171 on Saturday. But my PT avg is 173 on the last 4 tests (all 5 section ones).
Weird that they are 175 (PT 49), 176 (PT 60), 171 (PT 59), 171 (PT 58)

[jsong10]

Did anyone think that PT 60's RC was hard? I did very badly (-6, where as I usually get -0 to -2 in RC)...I think i passed out or something.

[gdane]

Did anyone think that PT 60's RC was hard? I did very badly (-6, where as I usually get -0 to -2 in RC)...I think i passed out or something.

RC was very interesting. I liked the passages. They were easy to understand.

LR 2 was a problem.

[Patriot1208]

Did anyone think that PT 60's RC was hard? I did very badly (-6, where as I usually get -0 to -2 in RC)...I think i passed out or something.

I did the same as my average for RC.

[jsong10]

Hmm...it was the opposite for me. I thought LR2 was easy. I flew through it. I pray to God that I don't get a RC as an experimental on test day....

[NYC1010]

Just took December 2009 PT (59)... Bombed way below my average (got a 158, usually in 165-168 range)---wondering if it is just nerves with the test coming up... struggled with time throughout, normally dont... anyone else feel their prep going south as the test approaches? How do i liberate myself from this downward spiral?

[catsparka]

Did anyone think that PT 60's RC was hard? I did very badly (-6, where as I usually get -0 to -2 in RC)...I think i passed out or something.

YES. I just finished it. I had a mini panic attack after the third passage. I froze for a good minute once I saw the last passage was about law. I finished at 34:58. Miraculously, I ended up getting only a -1. And it was the first question of the section. I hated the suburban sprawl passage. The other three weren't exactly my favorites either. UGH.

[JJDancer]

Did anyone think that PT 60's RC was hard? I did very badly (-6, where as I usually get -0 to -2 in RC)...I think i passed out or something.

Thought it was better than the RC for PT 56/57.
But as is the trend, it had some tricky questions. The passages seemed avg/relatively simple though (no "how corn does photosynthesis")

[justadude55]

Did anyone think that PT 60's RC was hard? I did very badly (-6, where as I usually get -0 to -2 in RC)...I think i passed out or something.

YES. I just finished it. I had a mini panic attack after the third passage. I froze for a good minute once I saw the last passage was about law. I finished at 34:58. Miraculously, I ended up getting only a -1. And it was the first question of the section. I hated the suburban sprawl passage. The other three weren't exactly my favorites either. UGH.

Just did it today.

The 3rd Passage was pretty hard, but overall not that bad...

I got -2 in the section, which I was pleasantly surprised about because I never felt in control of the section. 1 of the ones I got wrong was a detail and I only got it wrong because I misread a choice saying "they read their lines directly" as "they read their LIVES directly." if it was "lives" i would have been right, but it wasn't

I got -0 in games, -2 in LR section 1.... that question #6 was very hard!!!!!!!! hardest pre-question 16 i've seen, -0 in games and -1 LR in section 3.

If anybody understands #6 in section 1, please let me know. i obsessed about it the entire test.

[justadude55]

Did anyone think that PT 60's RC was hard? I did very badly (-6, where as I usually get -0 to -2 in RC)...I think i passed out or something.

Thought it was better than the RC for PT 56/57.
But as is the trend, it had some tricky questions. The passages seemed avg/relatively simple though (no "how corn does photosynthesis")

59 had the hardest RC in my opinion. the noguchi passage, at least the questions and the level of detail needed on all of them was tremendous. i understand the passage, but still got 3 wrong.

[lparker]

If anybody understands #6 in section 1, please let me know. i obsessed about it the entire test.

I would be interested to know this too. I missed it as well.

[incompetentia]

RC60 was my worst section of any since I started taking PTs (-11). None of those passages was kind to me...the last one especially.

By the way, getting a bit more worried than I should about this...it got swallowed up at the end of the last page so reposting a condensed version here.

I decided with PT54 (my last) to try to walk into the saloon already firing away, just sort of haphazardly going through the test and not agonizing over any one problem (my method on tests throughout UG). I set a 90-minute time limit:
RC: -1 LR1: -1 LG: -0 LR2: -2 Overall: -4, 177 but I consider this better than my previous 177+ scores because the others were all done on at least -11 curves

This brings up a dilemma, though - was I really meant to tear through this test and close the booklet with 10 minutes to spare in each section? I've been making consistent progress using my slow-down method to try to get me to carefully consider each choice; should I abandon this entirely to go for something that has worked wonders once, and might just as easily produce a score in the mid-160s when I take 61?

I am a splitter (my 3.71 crumbled to 3.55 when LSDAS ran it through their meat grinder), so I think it might be worth it to go for it, but I know that in the 5 minutes between when I finished and when I started to grade I was sure I'd bombed. For the real thing, I don't know if I could take that for three weeks.

[stargazin]

I didn't think it was.

Do you feel like this section lacked certain aspects that more recent sections have?

In general I feel like the 50s games tend to have more ordering/conditional, max/min, and hybrid problems than the 30s, but I haven't been able to tell the difference from late 40s. I don't have the 46 test in front of me right now, but I felt like the cassette tape game was pretty tough.

[sknight323]

I didn't do particularly well on LR on that test but I did get that question right. i'm having a hard time "seeing" LR questions at the moment (i'm kind of burnt out, I think)

but if you can't know for sure how many sea otters died in total, how is it possible to know that the percentage of otters who were successfully rehabilitated was "much lower"? if you didn't know that, that seriously undermines that claim, which backs up the conclusion conclusion (that the effort was not worthwhile).

Sorry if that wasn't clear, I am not seeing LR questions clearly atm.

[gdane]

If anybody understands #6 in section 1, please let me know. i obsessed about it the entire test.

I would be interested to know this too. I missed it as well.

I used process of elimination. Most of the other ones are irrelevant because they talk about other animals. We dont care about other animals, just otters. That left me with B and C. I eliminated C because capturing and releasing otters that were not affected by the spill didnt really address the conclusion. So, I dont have an exact explanation, but process of elimination did well for me on this question.

[JJDancer]

If anybody understands #6 in section 1, please let me know. i obsessed about it the entire test.

I would be interested to know this too. I missed it as well.

Is that sea otters? If so: (just copying and pasting a post I made about this on another thread)
PT 60 S1 q6
6. Background: After oil spill, rebab centers to get oil off and save sea otters. Conclusion: effort not worthwhile. WHy? because 357+900 were found and counted and 18% were saved. (since 900 of the ones they FOUND AND COUNTED were already dead - no chance of being saved...this "support" seemed questionable to me). Then they further support it by saying that they actually saved less than 18% of those affected (meaning put in any danger from the oil whether illness or death) because only a fifth of otters that died immediately were EVER found.

#6 - Let's say they somehow later found that they had counted 357+900 but actually later found 200 more dead otters. How would they know that they had died IMMEDIATELY?? Or that they had died because of the oil spill?
Since they clearly state "only 1/5 of those that died immediately were ever found" means they NEVER found any more dead otters. So how do they know that they even exist? Even if they had found them later, like I said, they don't know the cause of death.

[Aggiegrad2011]

To hell with PT 59 RC/LR.

[NYC1010]

59 had the hardest RC in my opinion. the noguchi passage, at least the questions and the level of detail needed on all of them was tremendous. i understand the passage, but still got 3 wrong.

Same here... I got 18 20 21 wrong

[Aggiegrad2011]

59 had the hardest RC in my opinion. the noguchi passage, at least the questions and the level of detail needed on all of them was tremendous. i understand the passage, but still got 3 wrong.

Same here... I got 18 20 21 wrong

I'm in the PT59 SS Failboat with you guys too.

What a confidence buster.

[incompetentia]

The way I saw 60 S1 Q6 was as follows:

357 found alive, 222 of these rehabilitated (and therefore released)
900 more found already dead
Supposedly as many as 3600 more otters (no exact count since we don't know the subset of those dead immediately) chillin' and being dead. It's also possible that they're trying to make us make the conclusion that if they were FOUND dead, they must have died immediately.

Therefore, since only 222 of possibly ~4900 otters were ever rehabilitated, this program sucks.

(A) Irrelevant.
(B) If we assume that their methodology for calculating unfound otters is incorrect, the proportion saved increases no matter what. Successful weaken
(C) If trapped and released otters were NOT affected by the spill, this actually STRENGTHENS the argument because even fewer than 222 of the otters rehabilitated even needed rehabilitation.
(D) Irrelevant.
(E) Argument says nothing about cost.

[NYC1010]

I'm in the PT59 SS Failboat with you guys too.

What a confidence buster.

Yeah, i'm gonna do another right now to hopefully rejuice the confidence... can't go into the test feeling this way

[lennonist]

PT 60 results

LR1 -0
LG -5 (i'm a moron, got -0 in June)
LR2 -5
RC -5

-15 total, which is below a 170 (-12), which is bad news.

Will do RC and LR from PT 59 as timed sections. No more PTs until Sat!