Weird Second Diagnostic Forum

[Ludacrispat26]

I am taking the TestMasters course and scored a 159 on my original diag. I took the second one yesterday (October '08) and our class was told not to expect an increase because we're learning new methods and it takes time to apply them properly. My instructor even said if we go up significantly we are probably going too fast. I scored a 167 (-8 LR, -4 RC, -1 LG), raw of 87. Funny thing is that I am not very good at LG; on the experimental LG section they gave us for the test, which I think was from another real PT, I scored 10/23 rather than the 22/23 on the real section. We have our review session tonight, but I was wondering if anyone in the course or in general could help. Anything significant about the OCT 08 LG or test in general?

[arewhyaen]

Well the experimental games section that they gave for diag 2 was particularly hard, so don't be worried about that. But games two and four were hard for the scored section, so the fact that you got both those games and escaped with a -1 I believe shows your capabilities. The reading comp was a little more difficult on this diag if I remember correctly also. Seriously, talk-stories? I dont understand the notion of "improving too fast." If you're getting the concepts, then you're fine. Congrats on the improvement

[lawman2010]

Here's what I think:

I took the GMAT and my practice tests were very consistent with what I achieved on the actual test. Like, exactly. I took five practice tests. Two were exactly 700 (which is what I actually scored) and the other three were all right around 700.

For the LSAT, my practice tests were all over the map. Lowest: 159, Highest: 176. Actual: 163

My point: The LSAT is not as consistent a test as the GMAT, and it really depends on which practice test you are taking. You'd better hope the LSAT you actually take plays to your strengths.

[Ludacrispat26]

Here's what I think:

I took the GMAT and my practice tests were very consistent with what I achieved on the actual test. Like, exactly. I took five practice tests. Two were exactly 700 (which is what I actually scored) and the other three were all right around 700.

For the LSAT, my practice tests were all over the map. Lowest: 159, Highest: 176. Actual: 163

My point: The LSAT is not as consistent a test as the GMAT, and it really depends on which practice test you are taking. You'd better hope the LSAT you actually take plays to your strengths.

Ha, very ironic, as I also took the GMAT. I scored a 690 and all of my practice tests were also in the 680-710 area, so I see what you mean. I think this is the advantage of CAT exams; they are more likely to find your "true talent level" than tests like the LSAT, which gives in a considerable amount to luck in certain extents.

[AverageTutoring]

Here's what I think:

I took the GMAT and my practice tests were very consistent with what I achieved on the actual test. Like, exactly. I took five practice tests. Two were exactly 700 (which is what I actually scored) and the other three were all right around 700.

For the LSAT, my practice tests were all over the map. Lowest: 159, Highest: 176. Actual: 163

My point: The LSAT is not as consistent a test as the GMAT, and it really depends on which practice test you are taking. You'd better hope the LSAT you actually take plays to your strengths.

This may be true but the difference between a -13 and a -1 on any given section cannot be entirely attributed to luck. Honestly, I don't know how this happens within the same exam.

Take another timed LG section and see how you do. Take the average of all three sections (like if you were to conduct an experiment) and that'll give you a good indication of your present LG ability.

[ralph_pootawn]

Wierd stuff bro. Im in the testmasters class too. Got the same scores on both my diagnostics as u did. D1-159 D2-167 i also got -1 on the game section that counted but i only got -2 on the experimental. I got -5 in LR -1 in LG and -6 in RC giving me a raw score of 88. I thought I did substantially worse during the test since I was unable to finish the RC section. I did get one of my guesses right which inflates my score a bit. Part of your issue could have been that the experimental LG was the first section so maybe after you warmed up you were ready to go.

[Ludacrispat26]

Wierd stuff bro. Im in the testmasters class too. Got the same scores on both my diagnostics as u did. D1-159 D2-167 i also got -1 on the game section that counted but i only got -2 on the experimental. I got -5 in LR -1 in LG and -6 in RC giving me a raw score of 88. I thought I did substantially worse during the test since I was unable to finish the RC section. I did get one of my guesses right which inflates my score a bit. Part of your issue could have been that the experimental LG was the first section so maybe after you warmed up you were ready to go.

Congrats on the awesome performance man. I think the class going over the test cleared things up. I got 4/5 on the first game, then just panicked and tried to do the second game, taking too much time and wound up just guessing every one (only 1/5 guesses right), then left myself no time to do the other ones. However, my scoring on the real section at least leaves me relatively confident in my abilities. LR was particularly hard (I got -6 on first one and -2 on the other). I made up ground in RC with -4 (I honestly found the Kingston passage to be pretty easy lol).

I know this isn't probably my true talent level right now, so we'll wait and see for Diag 3. But I'll hit my weaknesses til then and be content w/ my Diag 2 process for now.

[fosterp]

Here's what I think:

I took the GMAT and my practice tests were very consistent with what I achieved on the actual test. Like, exactly. I took five practice tests. Two were exactly 700 (which is what I actually scored) and the other three were all right around 700.

For the LSAT, my practice tests were all over the map. Lowest: 159, Highest: 176. Actual: 163

My point: The LSAT is not as consistent a test as the GMAT, and it really depends on which practice test you are taking. You'd better hope the LSAT you actually take plays to your strengths.

This may be true but the difference between a -13 and a -1 on any given section cannot be entirely attributed to luck. Honestly, I don't know how this happens within the same exam.

Take another timed LG section and see how you do. Take the average of all three sections (like if you were to conduct an experiment) and that'll give you a good indication of your present LG ability.

Early on learning logic games I would commonly miss a very obvious inference or misdiagram a rule, both of which could turn a very easy game into a hard one. Or make a very hard game seem easy and then blow through getting nearly all incorrect. Though usually after 4th or 5th question it becomes obvious you screwed something up and have to redo your work, and then the time limit comes crashing on you. This could easily explain doing really well on a section and then blowing the next. Took me a lot of practice to stop making dumb mistakes, after which the scores start becoming consistent.