The 160s Club! Join all ye 170 hopefuls! Forum

[Tangerine Gleam]

This fucking test and its accurate curve. I thought I nailed it today, but I got the same thing as always.

PT 46: Raw: 91 Scaled: 171

I'm ready to see some improvement after averaging 170-172 for a month. I also finished LG 4 minutes early and proceeded to miss 3 questions due to carelessness. I'm disappointed in me. Had I caught my mistakes, it could have been a 176.

"Could have been..."

[Bustang]

I took a break from everything yesterday. Went golfing, shopped a bit, and relaxed. It felt very nice. Two timed sections today and a PT 50 tomorrow though. Let's see if I can get 4 167+ in a row.

[LawToMe]

I took a break from everything yesterday. Went golfing, shopped a bit, and relaxed. It felt very nice. Two timed sections today and a PT 50 tomorrow though. Let's see if I can get 4 167+ in a row.

I predict you will. I've found the R&R strategy to work.

[Bustang]

I took a break from everything yesterday. Went golfing, shopped a bit, and relaxed. It felt very nice. Two timed sections today and a PT 50 tomorrow though. Let's see if I can get 4 167+ in a row.

I predict you will. I've found the R&R strategy to work.

Nod. I circle names and that's it. I've consistently been getting -2/-4 on all my PT's since then. I even suggested it to a friend of mine who got a 155 on the June test and she went from missing -10/-12 to -5/-6. It works people!

[barkingbug]

Feb 97 - 169

Hell yes... new high. Incredible really, because I felt so unfocused and tired at the beginning that I was really tempted just to drop it and try tomorrow. I really expected a horrible result, so this is good.

LR -1
LG -6
RC -7
LR -2

LG -6 is actually good by my standards; the best I have done yet (sad, I know). Obviously, I will be studying that more in the next few weeks. The LGB brought me up from -11/-12, but I'm hoping for more. RC -7 is about the worst I've done. I knew it wasn't going well. Ran out of time and got the last two wrong on entirely blind guesses. Pace remains a problem. I've hit -3 total on LRs before, but usually don't. Seems like a generous scale, but I am pleased. 169 on the real deal would be just fine. Going to start doing more pts in noisy places, maybe with a 6th section and 34 min per. Anyone else have a strategy for beating test day distractions, etc?

[rtvendetti]

161 sunday woo..first timer but the lg are killin me!! i need improvement

[hypermeganet]

Feb 97 - 169

Hell yes... new high. Incredible really, because I felt so unfocused and tired at the beginning that I was really tempted just to drop it and try tomorrow. I really expected a horrible result, so this is good.

LR -1
LG -6
RC -7
LR -2

LG -6 is actually good by my standards; the best I have done yet (sad, I know). Obviously, I will be studying that more in the next few weeks. The LGB brought me up from -11/-12, but I'm hoping for more. RC -7 is about the worst I've done. I knew it wasn't going well. Ran out of time and got the last two wrong on entirely blind guesses. Pace remains a problem. I've hit -3 total on LRs before, but usually don't. Seems like a generous scale, but I am pleased. 169 on the real deal would be just fine. Going to start doing more pts in noisy places, maybe with a 6th section and 34 min per. Anyone else have a strategy for beating test day distractions, etc?

Doing PTs that are reflective of the test you'll be taking instead of PT16 or something. I'm not trying to be rude...but I'd suggest not doing those exams unless you're already comfortable with the current exams.

[teaadntoast]

Feb 97 - 169

Hell yes... new high. Incredible really, because I felt so unfocused and tired at the beginning that I was really tempted just to drop it and try tomorrow. I really expected a horrible result, so this is good.

I think the confidence you've gained would be best applied to newer tests. If you haven't already, start focusing on PTs from the late 40s and 50s since they more closely resemble what you'll actually see on test day.

[barkingbug]

Good point. I have taken a couple of the newest PTs and have a selection of ten of the most recent waiting on my desk. Plan to save most for the last two weeks. That said, I have not noticed a big difference. Interestingly, I scored exactly the same on LR1/LR2/RC on the 2007 exam I took recently, but much worse on LG. I have since thoroughly gone through the PSB, which has helped some. The newer RC is probably a bit harder.

[Kulax22]

Good tidings to report on the Kulax front. PT51, Raw 96~178. LR-2, RC-1, LR-1, LG-0. Experimental was LG from 46, -0, but I had done these individually in the past.

In fact, I did one of the PT51 LGs from the Powerscore Bible. But whatever, it was not too tough and I doubt I'd have had issues anyway.

I am still screwing myself with time. I guessed on the last RC, and went over time by a few seconds, so I could take my raw down a point. What is up with, #1, 28 long-ass RC questions? And, #2, tests with 100 and not 101 questions?

Overall, I'm really happy but I can't give up now...

[missvik218]

I think the confidence you've gained would be best applied to newer tests. If you haven't already, start focusing on PTs from the late 40s and 50s since they more closely resemble what you'll actually see on test day.

Yes and ...

Doing PTs that are reflective of the test you'll be taking instead of PT16 or something. I'm not trying to be rude...but I'd suggest not doing those exams unless you're already comfortable with the current exams.

Yes or unless you have tons of time to study and don't want to use up all of the newer exams early. Barkingbug, CONGRATS on the new high score ... but if you're taking in September you definitely need to begin, like Tea said, working a PTing on exams in the late 40s and 50s.

[keg411]

I have an "official" PT on Thursday, but I'm going to try and grab a book and see if I can do one of the more recent tests before then (probably tomorrow night). I've done some other work, however (individual LR types, a couple of LG's) and haven't missed a question yet, though, so I'm hoping I'm finally going to start to take off in terms of scoring.

"Go big or go home"

[teaadntoast]

Good point. I have taken a couple of the newest PTs and have a selection of ten of the most recent waiting on my desk. Plan to save most for the last two weeks. That said, I have not noticed a big difference. Interestingly, I scored exactly the same on LR1/LR2/RC on the 2007 exam I took recently, but much worse on LG. I have since thoroughly gone through the PSB, which has helped some. The newer RC is probably a bit harder.

I'd start now rather than saving them.

If something about the newer LR or RC is going to throw you it's much better to know as soon as possible so that you've got time to fix the problem.

[Bustang]

PT 50 today was, ugh.

165 Scaled, 86 raw.

LR was frustrating and complicated (at the time) causing me to go -5 on both sections. My second LR was severely shot due to a bro taking a seat next to me at the library making more noise than Hurricane Katrina. He entered the room at question 13 and I missed all 5 after 14. Games section went well, only minus 2. I'm pissed off but I haven't done this poorly on LR since July so hopefully this is a fluke. I'm going to re-do the arguments tonight.

[mountaintime]

I would like to join your prestigious club. My 16 or so preptests have ranged in score from 164 to 172 with an upward trend. My last 8 preptests have gone: 167, 169, 169, 170, 172, 171, 167, 167. The 170 and 171 were from preptests 50 and 53, which are the two most recent preptests Ive taken so far. I am going to take preptests 51, 52, 54, 55, and 56 over the next couple weeks as well as a few others between 45-50. Id love to score 170 on the real deal, but I will be happy with a 167 or better.

[barkingbug]

I think the confidence you've gained would be best applied to newer tests. If you haven't already, start focusing on PTs from the late 40s and 50s since they more closely resemble what you'll actually see on test day.

Yes and ...

Doing PTs that are reflective of the test you'll be taking instead of PT16 or something. I'm not trying to be rude...but I'd suggest not doing those exams unless you're already comfortable with the current exams.

Yes or unless you have tons of time to study and don't want to use up all of the newer exams early. Barkingbug, CONGRATS on the new high score ... but if you're taking in September you definitely need to begin, like Tea said, working a PTing on exams in the late 40s and 50s.

Thanks, but as I said earlier, I already have taken some of the newest PTs, so it is not a matter of starting on them at this point. Looking back, I've taken 6 PTs from the mid to late 40s and into the 50s. Working off of individual PTs and a PowerScore PT course book. PS, for whatever reason, flips back and forth in between the late 90s to 07 out of order. On the advice of instructors, I've saved a handful for the last two weeks. Only those that I know I will have plenty to time to take and study. Good luck.

[MBZags]

Holy poop on a stick!

I had topped out around 164-166 until today, but I took PT 51 just now and got a 172! Weeeeeeeeee!

[teaadntoast]

Holy poop on a stick!

I had topped out around 164-166 until today, but I took PT 51 just now and got a 172! Weeeeeeeeee!

Congrats!

[Veritas]

after a slight drop with PT47, PT48 is back on track:

164, 85 raw

LR: -4
LG: -0
RC: -4
LR: -8 (ahhh)

There was an experimental RC section in there.

That last LR section was interrupted a couple times, but I also followed a different method, which I am not going to assume as a regular practice.

Is the RC for 48 considered modern enough to be representative of what we are going to see (besides missing the comparative)??

[lsb]

after a slight drop with PT47, PT48 is back on track:

164, 85 raw

LR: -4
LG: -0
RC: -4
LR: -8 (ahhh)

There was an experimental RC section in there.

That last LR section was interrupted a couple times, but I also followed a different method, which I am not going to assume as a regular practice.

Is the RC for 48 considered modern enough to be representative of what we are going to see (besides missing the comparative)??

Kind of. They are harder than the earlier PTs but they are not as hard as the 50s. I can't really say for sure, though because i've only finished PT 53.

I would tell you one RC section in particular that really sucks but I don't want that to affect you when you take that test.

[lsb]

I have been paying close attention to when people post what PT they have taken and comment on whether or not it was a good or bad score for them, and I've noticed a trend: A lot of people seem to be doing good and bad on the same PTs. Obviously this is not always true, but more often than not, I'll see a number of people all say that a certain test was easy/hard.

Anyone else notice this. It is kind disheartening, because it means that luck plays a big role in getting a satisfactory score.

[sayan]

I have been paying close attention to when people post what PT they have taken and comment on whether or not it was a good or bad score for them, and I've noticed a trend: A lot of people seem to be doing good and bad on the same PTs. Obviously this is not always true, but more often than not, I'll see a number of people all say that a certain test was easy/hard.

Anyone else notice this. It is kind disheartening, because it means that luck plays a big role in getting a satisfactory score.

If you can get -4 consistently, there is no luck. Only success.

[02082010]

PT 50 today (the one with riddled basins of attraction RC)

-1LR, -2LG, -1RC
Raw: 96
Scaled 177



If I wouldn't have missed those two LG questions I would have gotten a 180 (funny thing is, I finished the section with 8 minutes and change remaining and didn't go over the questions bc I was sure I had gotten them all correct ). Anway, the weirdest thing is the last 4 or 5 days my LSAT prep has been nearly non-existant with me only doing 1 timed section a day or just reading an entire issue of The Economist. And I was stuck in the low 170 rut for the past few PTs. Anyway, I'm extremely happy bc I felt very confident during the test and made sure to thoroughly read each stimulus and answer choice in LR so as not to get tripped up on a difficult question.

[tamlyric]

PT 50 today (the one with riddled basins of attraction RC)

-1LR, -2LG, -1RC
Raw: 96
Scaled 177

Congratulations!!!! Keep it up.

[lsb]

I have been paying close attention to when people post what PT they have taken and comment on whether or not it was a good or bad score for them, and I've noticed a trend: A lot of people seem to be doing good and bad on the same PTs. Obviously this is not always true, but more often than not, I'll see a number of people all say that a certain test was easy/hard.

Anyone else notice this. It is kind disheartening, because it means that luck plays a big role in getting a satisfactory score.

If you can get -4 consistently, there is no luck. Only success.

You're missing my point. This holds true for even high scorers. A hard test could make a person averaging a 175 drop down to a 173/2, and an easy test could make that same person go up to a 177/8.