what exactly prompted a -14 curve on the Dec. test? Forum

[jdhopeful11]

i am confused. isnt the dec '09 pt # 56?

[keg411]

i am confused. isnt the dec '09 pt # 56?

Dec09 = PT59. It was the most recent exam prior to this past one (Feb10). You are thinking of Dec08.

[jdhopeful11]

i am confused. isnt the dec '09 pt # 56?

Dec09 = PT59. It was the most recent exam prior to this past one (Feb10). You are thinking of Dec08.

I have my printed out PT and it says December 2009 - Prep Test 56

[JasonR]

Then there's a typo.

[UTexas]

Seriously, would you like to go through each section question by question and determine the difficulty of the test? It's personal perspective of course, but it's easy enough to the point that I really think it's objectively well... "easy."

It's kinda like this. I took PT 57 and got a 173 scaled, but it was a harrowing exp. that other TLS'ers/friends that took the test with me could attest to, cause one was analyzing how i approached the test. I only had 5 minutes left for the last passage (fractal geometry) and somehow managed to get a -0 on it. I couldn't finish the LG, and the LR was pretty f'n hard too. My point is... even when i get a great score, i could still tell if the test was easy/hard. Is there even a single section from PT 59 that was harder than 57? Seriously, name one?

I already named several sections that I felt were harder on PT 59.

My experience with the two tests was the reverse of yours. I felt June 2009 was an easy test (probably in part since I thought the key inference on the dino game jumped off the page), and I felt like I had done poorly, relative to my PT average, on the December 2009 test. I have a hard time imagining how anyone would think that LR or RC were harder in June than in December.

In the end, I got a great score in December, but I felt like the test had given me a good beating.