target score: 176 Forum
-
- Posts: 254
- Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:02 pm
target score: 176
do you think that -4 will more or less guarantee at least a 176? i don't think i can get much more accurate than that. here are the scales:
http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/ls ... rsion.html
http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/ls ... rsion.html
- Hannibal
- Posts: 2211
- Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm
Re: target score: 176
I don't think I've seen a test that has a harsher curve than -4 = 176.
- Cromartie
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:27 pm
Re: target score: 176
This is still fresh in my mind as I just took the PT this past Sunday. PT 48: -4 = 175. I was so pissed with the curve that I created a thread just to express my disgust.Hannibal wrote:I don't think I've seen a test that has a harsher curve than -4 = 176.
-
- Posts: 254
- Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:02 pm
Re: target score: 176
is that some sort of cosmic joke?Cromartie wrote:This is still fresh in my mind as I just took the PT this past Sunday. PT 48: -4 = 175. I was so pissed with the curve that I created a thread just to express my disgust.Hannibal wrote:I don't think I've seen a test that has a harsher curve than -4 = 176.
- Adjudicator
- Posts: 1108
- Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:18 am
Re: target score: 176
-4 = 175? How is that even possible?? 

Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Cromartie
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:27 pm
Re: target score: 176
Well, the overall curve for the test was -8. Don't have the slightest clue how that happened. Granted the LG section was easier than in most PT's, the LR and RC sections were filled with subtleties and misdirections, making them pretty challenging.Adjudicator wrote:-4 = 175? How is that even possible??
- Adjudicator
- Posts: 1108
- Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:18 am
Re: target score: 176
I did the LG section from that PT today and I didn't like it; I got -3. So I would have to have missed no more than 1 on the rest of that test to get a 175?Cromartie wrote:Well, the overall curve for the test was -8. Don't have the slightest clue how that happened. Granted the LG section was easier than in most PT's, the LR and RC sections were filled with subtleties and misdirections, making them pretty challenging.Adjudicator wrote:-4 = 175? How is that even possible??
Outrageous!
- Cromartie
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:27 pm
Re: target score: 176
Yup, it sucks. Missed 3 on the last LG (rock bands and folk bands) and 2 on RC. My reward for a -5? 174. I remember taking one of the earlier 40's where a -6 netted me a 176.Adjudicator wrote:I did the LG section from that PT today and I didn't like it; I got -3. So I would have to have missed no more than 1 on the rest of that test to get a 175?Cromartie wrote:Well, the overall curve for the test was -8. Don't have the slightest clue how that happened. Granted the LG section was easier than in most PT's, the LR and RC sections were filled with subtleties and misdirections, making them pretty challenging.Adjudicator wrote:-4 = 175? How is that even possible??
Outrageous!