Page 1 of 1
anyone else thought PT 27 was brutal?
Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 3:59 pm
by lsat_doobie
was this test harder than most? I've been doing the PTs in the 20s (because I've done all the newer ones) and they seem a lot harder than the newer PTs, especially the LRs which seem so much more straight forward in the newer tests.
Re: anyone else thought PT 27 was brutal?
Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 pm
by LSAT Blog
The LG in the 20s are harder than modern LG.
PT27 contains the lizards and snakes game (G2) and the film buffs game (G3), both of which are time-consuming.
PT27, G2 is easily one of the toughest games ever.
I wouldn't say LR in the 20s are harder than modern LR, though.
Re: anyone else thought PT 27 was brutal?
Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 6:02 pm
by theZeigs
LSAT Blog wrote:The LG in the 20s are harder than modern LG.
PT27 contains the lizards and snakes game (G2) and the film buffs game (G3), both of which are time-consuming.
PT27, G2 is easily one of the toughest games ever.
I wouldn't say LR in the 20s are harder than modern LR, though.
TITCR +1 180
I can't imagine taking the test, getting the snakes lizards game, then hitting the film buffs game; esp. if I couldn't make the big deduction in the buffs game. I would fill in the two bubbles, sign the Johnnie Hancock, and roll out.
I don't remember the LR on 27 specifically, but I do agree about the LR with above poster. I think that RC were "easier" back in the day, this is so subjective that I'm not sure it's really the case, just my opinion maybe.