Is the LG on PT 59 particularly easy? Forum

[kpuc]

LGs are my weakest section, but I just drilled PT 59's LG and finished with 5 minutes to spare. I got -1 because of a dumb mistake, but this was the easiest LG experience that I've had in the 50s. Are they particularly easy?

One thing I did differently this time was that after I answered every question, I quickly jotted down the could-be-true arrangement beside the question. That way, in the later questions, I could refer to a neat history of possibilities and answer those questions without making a ton of hypotheticals. Sometimes, the problem of messiness can prevent you from referring back to old work, but since I cleanly organized it by the hypos' corresponding question number, it was very easy to track.

[niederbomb]

No way! Either you redid the section, or you made a big improvement.

[kpuc]

Nope, was my first time seeing the test.

I tried to do PT 60 yesterday after perhaps 2 hours of LSAT review, and my mind felt cluttered as hell. I did very poorly on the LGs, not because I was stumped by any of the questions but because I made many dumb mistakes (such as misreading/forgetting rules).

So this morning, I just played Rome: Total War for 2 hours, watched some Frasier on Youtube, then casually opened up PT 59. My mind felt much sharper without all the LSAT saturation beforehand.

Maybe that was the key.

[Jackson Pollock]

naw, average.

GL.

[gdane]

I got -0 on it. My only -0 ever. On any section. I felt it was really easy.

[aesis]

59 was hard and some say harder than 60.

So good job. Use this confidence as a springboard for Saturday!

[The Gentleman]

naw, average.

Ya it seemed about average difficulty for a recent games section

I just played Rome: Total War for 2 hours,

That game is straight badass. I was planning on pwnin in some Modern Warfare tomorrow to relax, but I might have to pop that one in too.

[Aggiegrad2011]

I found LG on PT59 to be decent, if not a little easy. I -1'd that section (Only missing one question about the girl's coursework) but I got destroyed by the Noguchi question on RC, and in fact, the amount of scientific jargon in PT59 really bothered me. From non-oxidizing metals to CO2/Methane to spotted freakin' butterflies, it was my worst PT ever. I am averaging 169 on PT 40-60 (Went along with the September challenge) and this was an unscaled 66/Scaled 156. Very confidence-busting. I aced AR and LG but just got my behind handed to me on LR and RC, which is unusual for me.

Blech to most of PT59.