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

[Knock]

Just wait until all of you get to the more recent tests. You'll be amazed by how easy the game and how hard RC is.

Haha crap. I just commented on your post on another thread about this. Summary: Shit, i'm very nervous now lol.

[honestabe84]

Just wait until all of you get to the more recent tests. You'll be amazed by how easy the game and how hard RC is.

Haha crap. I just commented on your post on another thread about this. Summary: Shit, i'm very nervous now lol.

LOL. I just replied to that post. We'll make this thread the official discussion.

[Knock]

Just wait until all of you get to the more recent tests. You'll be amazed by how easy the game and how hard RC is.

Haha crap. I just commented on your post on another thread about this. Summary: Shit, i'm very nervous now lol.

LOL. I just replied to that post. We'll make this thread the official discussion.

Haha, okay sounds good. Are you prepping for June?

[honestabe84]

Just wait until all of you get to the more recent tests. You'll be amazed by how easy the game and how hard RC is.

Haha crap. I just commented on your post on another thread about this. Summary: Shit, i'm very nervous now lol.

LOL. I just replied to that post. We'll make this thread the official discussion.

Haha, okay sounds good. Are you prepping for June?

Yep. I've already taken all the PTs from 40 and up. Right now I'm taking them for a second time, and I just finished PT 50.

[Knock]

Yep. I've already taken all the PTs from 40 and up. Right now I'm taking them for a second time, and I just finished PT 50.

Very nice, have you already taken a real LSAT, or is this your first one?. So far i've taken PT's 19-28, SuperPrep A,B,C, and then PT's 40 and 43. I think i'm going to backtrack and do 41 and 42 next, I need to go buy an online copy of them though since I couldn't find a hard copy of them. Then i'm going to do 44-59. Not sure if I should switch it up and maybe alternate something like 44, 51, 45, 52, 46, 53, etc, so i'm also getting a look at the newer PT's.

[honestabe84]

Yep. I've already taken all the PTs from 40 and up. Right now I'm taking them for a second time, and I just finished PT 50.

Very nice, have you already taken a real LSAT, or is this your first one?. So far i've taken PT's 19-28, SuperPrep A,B,C, and then PT's 40 and 43. I think i'm going to backtrack and do 41 and 42 next, I need to go buy an online copy of them though since I couldn't find a hard copy of them. Then i'm going to do 44-59. Not sure if I should switch it up and maybe alternate something like 44, 51, 45, 52, 46, 53, etc, so i'm also getting a look at the newer PT's.

No, this is my second time. I figured it would be better to redo the most recent PTs then to just do very old PTs for the first time. My scores may or may not be indicative of my potential, but I still think it's better practice that doing older PTs.

Yeah, you definitely should do all of the PTs in the 50s. I haven't noticed that much of a difference in LR, but many people on TLS seem to think that they are different that than the earlier LR.

[OklahomasOK]

Took PT 43 today, had a pretty good score, but I'm a little disappointed in missing 4 LR questions, although I feel like this was a fairly difficult LR section. Anyways, feel like i'm really starting to get a strong grasp of concepts, and am improving.

Summary:
43 -- 04/17/10 ----- -1 RC -2 LR -2 LR -0 LG ------ 96/177 ---- 4 sections, fully timed

This is a bit late, but I took 43 today. I thought the LR was BRUTAL as well. Great score though, I thought this was one of the tougher tests I've seen. The first three sections were pretty disheartening for me, but the LG seemed like a gift. I made a pretty powerful inference on the 3rd game and finished the section in under 30 minutes.

[hemm]

PT31 - 93 / 175. -5 LG, -2 LR, -1 RC

Pretty frustrated with this. Logic games got me here. It's really disheartening because I don't know how I'll get better. It seems like complete luck if I'll get easy or hard games on the real thing. OTOH, LSAT Blog has the second game from this test listed under the 10 hardest games.

[joonhp]

PT9 - RC:-5, LR:-2, LG:-3, LR:-2 172

I seem to be fluctuating with my RC...sometimes -0...sometimes up to -6 ...anyone else have this problem? I can't seem to figure out what i can do to gain consistency.

[Knock]

PT 44: went -2 RC -3 LR -1 LG -1 LR

Definitely have noticed on 43/44 that the LR/RC is more difficult, and that the LG are easier. Overall, thought this was a fairly hard PT, with a weak curve.

summary:
44 -- 04/19/10 ----- -2 RC -3 LR -1 LG -1 LR ------ 93/173 ---- 4 sections, fully timed

[Knock]

Took PT 45 today, and got my highest ever PT score! -1 LR -0 RC -0 LG -3 LR for 95 raw 178 scaled!

I even had a shot at getting a 180 if I had only gone -1 on the last LR section, but I guess it wasn't in the cards for me today .

Anyways, I thought this PT was pretty challenging for the LR and RC, and fairly easy for the LG. My 1 error on the first LR section was also the last question I answered, the parallel reasoning one at the end, as I was running out of time. On the RC section, I actually thought this might have ended up being my worst RC score, I had to skip like 3 or 4 questions on the 2nd passage, and took a lot of time on them, but nailed passages 3 and 4 I guess (although I thought the science one was going to cost me a bit), and came back with only a few minutes left and I guess taking my mind off it helped passage 2 to click, and I answered the last 3 or 4 questions correctly. The LG I felt was easy, I finished early, but I do think I need to review the rules a bit, because the 3rd grouping game was kind of confusing for me. Like if Y was not selected then R was selected, at first I thought that meant if R was not selected, then Y was selected, because it's the contrapositive, but i'm not sure. If anyone could help me out with that it'd be appreciated. I also messed up on that same game, I thought the rule that S is in every picture of U and W is in every picture of S to mean that WSU were a package deal, but then I figured out on the last question that if you select W, then you need S and U, if you select S you only need U, and you can select only U. Luckily the only question that really tested on knowing this rule was the last one, at which point I was able to figure it out. But still, got lucky there . The last LR was a little disappointing. I knew that if I could go -1 and match my other LR section I would walk out with a 180, but I guess I couldn't make it happen.

Anyways, summary of my best PT yet:
45 -- 04/20/10 ----- -1 LR -0 RC -0 LG -3 LR ------ 95/178 ---- 4 sections, fully timed

Now i'm going to do a 5th section, and do a 5th section for the next 3 tests, and then score that one as well.

Edit: Ended up going -3 on the first section (LR). Anyone know the curve for PT 41?

[Dinho]

The LG I felt was easy, I finished early, but I do think I need to review the rules a bit, because the 3rd grouping game was kind of confusing for me. Like if Y was not selected then R was selected, at first I thought that meant if R was not selected, then Y was selected, because it's the contrapositive, but i'm not sure. If anyone could help me out with that it'd be appreciated.

Knockglock,

I just recently did that game so I can help you out here. That rule was kind of tricky to me, too, but I ended up getting it. You've got the conditional and the contrapositive right, but it also means that R and Y can be together. So the way I found best to define it was: Must have R or Y, at minimum. Hope this helps.

Incidentally, what are your target schools assuming you score your average on test day?

[Knock]

The LG I felt was easy, I finished early, but I do think I need to review the rules a bit, because the 3rd grouping game was kind of confusing for me. Like if Y was not selected then R was selected, at first I thought that meant if R was not selected, then Y was selected, because it's the contrapositive, but i'm not sure. If anyone could help me out with that it'd be appreciated.

Knockglock,

I just recently did that game so I can help you out here. That rule was kind of tricky to me, too, but I ended up getting it. You've got the conditional and the contrapositive right, but it also means that R and Y can be together. So the way I found best to define it was: Must have R or Y, at minimum. Hope this helps.

Incidentally, what are your target schools assuming you score your average on test day?

Thank you.

Hmm, i'm not really sure as far as schools. I was kind of planning on letting my LSAT score dictate where I apply. If my score holds up to my averages, i'll probably blanket the T14, minus Northwestern (straight out of UG, so slim odds). Plus a fair amount of safety schools. I'd prefer to stay in CA though, so my top choices definitely include Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, and USC. I have a solid GPA, it won't keep me out of anywhere except for possibly T3, but not sure if its strong enough to get me anywhere, especially since I come from a not-well known state school. I also have a claim to being a URM, but i'm not sure if I'm going to exercise it through a diversity statement. Basically, i'm not really sure, and I have a lot of thinking, soul-searching, and application-crafting to do.

What about you?

[Dinho]

Ideally Chicago, but with MVP not far behind. My GPA somewhat precludes me from Boalt and Stanford, which is disappointing as I want to return to the Bay Area (SF in particular) to work.

I have to say, by the way, that as a Giants fan I take serious exception to your avatar! Very disappointing series...

[Intersect2.0]

Did PT #13 today. I'm finally done course work for this semester, so I now have real time to dedicate to the LSAT!

LG: -2
LR: -4
RC: -0
LR: -4

Total Score: 174

[Knock]

Ideally Chicago, but with MVP not far behind. My GPA somewhat precludes me from Boalt and Stanford, which is disappointing as I want to return to the Bay Area (SF in particular) to work.

I have to say, by the way, that as a Giants fan I take serious exception to your avatar! Very disappointing series...

That's a bummer, I really want to attend one of the top bay area schools as well. It's a lot of my motivation to do well, so I can stay in the state. My GPA could be a bit better for Stanford and Boalt though.

Don't worry, this is definitely not the Dodgers year...i'm waiting for the McCourts to sell the team and get us a real owner.

Did PT #13 today. I'm finally done course work for this semester, so I now have real time to dedicate to the LSAT!

LG: -2
LR: -5
RC: -0
LR: -4

Total Score: 173

Congrats! I'm jealous, i'm still not done with classes for about a month and a half. Good score too .

[honestabe84]

Did PT #13 today. I'm finally done course work for this semester, so I now have real time to dedicate to the LSAT!

LG: -2
LR: -5
RC: -0
LR: -4

Total Score: 173

How in the world do you get -0 on RC? This is one section that is holding me back from a 170.

[Intersect2.0]

Did PT #13 today. I'm finally done course work for this semester, so I now have real time to dedicate to the LSAT!

LG: -2
LR: -5
RC: -0
LR: -4

Total Score: 173

How in the world do you get -0 on RC? This is one section that is holding me back from a 170.

I wish I knew! I'm doing a Masters in sociology at the moment, so it may be that I'm used to slogging through dense prose. They do NOT kid around with that stuff in grad school.

[Knock]

Got my highest PT score today on PT 46! I went -1 RC -1 LR (-1 LG experimental here) -0 LR -0 LG for 97 raw, 179 scaled. It was also the first test I took with the proper experimental in the 1st 3 sections (I put in 41.2 in section 3), and took a 15 minute break between sections 3 and 4. So i'm feeling pretty good, I thought I actually had hit 180, but then I realized that one of the questions from the RC section was removed from scoring . Oh well, still feeling pretty good, although this was a fairly easy test, with a -9 curve.

Summary:
46 -- 04/21/10 ----- -1 RC -1 LR -0 LR -0 LG ------ 97/179 ---- 5 sections (exp. PT41.2 as 3rd section)

New averages:
LR: -5.17 (-.24)
LG: -2.61 (-.15)
RC: -1.89 (-.05)

PS. Anyone know the curve or scoring table to PT 41? I have the PT but not the scoring table so I can't compute my score when i'm finished.

[hemm]

Got my highest PT score today on PT 46! I went -1 RC -1 LR (-1 LG experimental here) -0 LR -0 LG for 97 raw, 179 scaled. It was also the first test I took with the proper experimental in the 1st 3 sections (I put in 41.2 in section 3), and took a 15 minute break between sections 3 and 4. So i'm feeling pretty good, I thought I actually had hit 180, but then I realized that one of the questions from the RC section was removed from scoring . Oh well, still feeling pretty good, although this was a fairly easy test, with a -9 curve.

Summary:
46 -- 04/21/10 ----- -1 RC -1 LR -0 LR -0 LG ------ 97/179 ---- 5 sections (exp. PT41.2 as 3rd section)

New averages:
LR: -5.17 (-.24)
LG: -2.61 (-.15)
RC: -1.89 (-.05)

PS. Anyone know the curve or scoring table to PT 41? I have the PT but not the scoring table so I can't compute my score when i'm finished.

Amazing score! With an experimental section too. Just curious, why are you mixing up the order of your PTs? I'm doing them chronologically.

My latest:

PT32 - 94 / 176. -3 LG, -2 LR, -2 RC

The reading comp seemed harder on this test. I definitely see why I missed the two questions that I did, though. It's annoying because I had time to check my answers and still missed them. Same with LR. LG went okay - I haven't reviewed that section yet though. Work's been pretty bad this week so I'd like to chalk up my RC score to fatigue

Averages:
LR -3.14
RC -0.86
LG -4.43

Also, the curve for PT41 is -12 (for a 170).

[Knock]

Got my highest PT score today on PT 46! I went -1 RC -1 LR (-1 LG experimental here) -0 LR -0 LG for 97 raw, 179 scaled. It was also the first test I took with the proper experimental in the 1st 3 sections (I put in 41.2 in section 3), and took a 15 minute break between sections 3 and 4. So i'm feeling pretty good, I thought I actually had hit 180, but then I realized that one of the questions from the RC section was removed from scoring . Oh well, still feeling pretty good, although this was a fairly easy test, with a -9 curve.

Summary:
46 -- 04/21/10 ----- -1 RC -1 LR -0 LR -0 LG ------ 97/179 ---- 5 sections (exp. PT41.2 as 3rd section)

New averages:
LR: -5.17 (-.24)
LG: -2.61 (-.15)
RC: -1.89 (-.05)

PS. Anyone know the curve or scoring table to PT 41? I have the PT but not the scoring table so I can't compute my score when i'm finished.

Amazing score! With an experimental section too. Just curious, why are you mixing up the order of your PTs? I'm doing them chronologically.

My latest:

PT32 - 94 / 176. -3 LG, -2 LR, -2 RC

The reading comp seemed harder on this test. I definitely see why I missed the two questions that I did, though. It's annoying because I had time to check my answers and still missed them. Same with LR. LG went okay - I haven't reviewed that section yet though. Work's been pretty bad this week so I'd like to chalk up my RC score to fatigue

Averages:
LR -3.14
RC -0.86
LG -4.43

Also, the curve for PT41 is -12 (for a 170).

Thanks man I'm mixing up PT's out of neccessity, rather than for any strategic advantage. I used PT's 29-38 to learn LG and LR originally (went through them by type), so I didn't want to take them as complete PT's. There is still some material here though that I haven't gone through, so i'm going to go back and make sure i've done all the sections. So I took 19-28, skipped 29-38, took SuperPrep A,B,C because I figured it was a good time to take it, I knew the questions/test well enough, but thought the explanations would still help. Then I took 40, 43, 44, 45, 46 skipping 39, 41, 42 because when I bought the PT's originally, they weren't available. I was able to get them though, so i'm probably going to take them soon. Then i'm going to keep taking them chronologically until I finish 49, then, since I feel like i'll hit this soon and still have a long time before the June test, I will backtrack and take some PT's in the teens so I time my last 10 PT's perfectly for the June test.

Congrats on the 176. If that's you're score when fatigued, just wait until your rested .

[Knock]

Took PT 39 today, a little bit disappointing, went -3 LG -3 LR -1 RC -3 LR for 91 raw 172 scaled. In addition, I took PT 41 section 3 as the experimental, going -0 on LR. I think the older LG were a big reason for my score drop. My LR was the most disappointing part of this test though. I really should have done better. A little bummed, oh well.

Summary:
39 -- 04/22/10 ----- -3 LG -3 LR -1 RC -3 LR ------ 91/172 ---- 5 sections (exp. PT41.3 as 3rd section)

[Knock]

So far this week i've taken 5 PT's (M-F) plus 1 PT that was divided into 4 sections and used as a 5th experimental section for T-F.

Scores are:
Mon: 173
Tues: 178
Weds: 179
Thurs: 172
Fri: 174

Average for the week: 175.2

6th PT taken as 4 different experimental sections in 4 diff. PT's: 174

Average for the week w/ "experimental" PT:
175

Probably going to take tomorrow mostly off, just review the last PT I took and the PT that I used as experimental sections. Maybe do some LG because I really want to start getting consistent -0's.

Summary:
42 -- 04/23/10 ----- -2 LG -2 LR -2 RC -1 LR ------ 94/174 ---- 5 sections (exp. PT41.4 as 2nd section)
41 -- 04/20-4/10 --- -3 LR -1 LG -0 LR -4 RC ------ 93/174 ---- used as experimental section for PT's

[hemm]

PT33: 93 / 175. -6 LR, -2 RC, -0 LG

Disappointed in my LR score. Going to redo some of LRB this week and drill my weak questions types with some LR sections I've saved just for this occasion. Also, I need to look at my RC mistakes and see if there's a pattern - a certain question type, or maybe passage topics that I'm having trouble with.

[Knock]

Took PT 47 today, with PT18.1 as the 1st section experimental going (experimental -1 LG) -3 LR -2 RC -1 LR -0 LG for 94 raw 174 scaled. I feel like i'm kind of stuck here, would like to improve a little bit more. This one also felt like a tough test for a -10 curve. I also feel like i'm really starting to get a good grasp on logic games now. Just need to work on cleaning everything up, but its hard to reduce those last few mistakes!

Summary:
47 -- 04/27/10 ----- -3 LR -2 RC -1 LR -0 LG ------ 94/174 ----- 5 sections (exp. PT18.1 as 1st section)