I just did PT57 and I would like some advice plz Forum

[roranoa]

...it was a total wreck.

I got LG:-7 LR:-5,-4 and RC: -4 (RC was okay for me)


I usually get -1 to -3 on LG and LR so I'm freaking out.
(I'm currently registered for the Dec LSAT)

Are the questions for LR and LG pretty much the same difficulty on PT's leading up to PT62?
It seems the LR sections are much more complicated than the previous ones....

Or is just PT 57 an anomaly?

[2011Law]

About to do 57 in a little bit when the library opens, will let you know how it goes.

[kpuc]

PT 57 is arguably the most difficult of the PT 50s (the other contender is PT 59). Its LG is particularly infamous.

[guinness]

It was my highest scoring LSAT. Got destroyed by the dinosaurs, but did awesome otherwise.

[2011Law]

First time since the "next 10" that I spent 50+ min on games, and it really messed with my head. took 51 min to complete all but two of the questions, but only got those two wrong (dinosaurs took 19:30... yeah). I thought i did way worse on the remaining sections than I actually did, only -2 on the 1st LR and RC (avg for RC is -6), but -6 on 2nd LR (avg -3).

I swear during the second section (after games) I was thinking of ways to steal the exam beforehand, or maybe just say that I'm puerto rican.

[roranoa]

what should I do?

I've done some searching on this matter and some say that it's not that the questions are harder but just different.

[zky]

I think you just need to adjust your mindset. First time I got hit with the new RC (I think it was a PT in the early 50s), I was just blown away. It was so bad I was contemplating skipping a whole passage and guessing on five questions. And I used to consistently ace the RC in prior PTs.

But basically, by just adjusting my mindset from "I'm going to easily ace this section" to "I'm going to have to work my ass off but I can still do this", I eventually figured it out after that. If you are rocking previous PTs, you have the skills - just need to ramp up the effort.

I did have to hone my technique as well, though. I suggest going through relevant threads on RC, LR, etc., and trying out some things. For example, one thing that works for me is to skip the toughest questions outright (parallels, convoluted structure questions, etc.), and come back at the end. This minimizes time pressure, so I finish the section in 30 mins., and then go clean up what's left. Time pressure kills - it's very hard to focus on that last passage when the clock is ticking. Also, I always do longest passages / questions set first. Same reason - so much easier to deal with a 5 question set at the end, instead of an 8 question set. For me, at least.

[Adjudicator]

I thought PT57 was the most treacherous LSAT ever, personally.

[roranoa]

I think you just need to adjust your mindset. First time I got hit with the new RC (I think it was a PT in the early 50s), I was just blown away. It was so bad I was contemplating skipping a whole passage and guessing on five questions. And I used to consistently ace the RC in prior PTs.

But basically, by just adjusting my mindset from "I'm going to easily ace this section" to "I'm going to have to work my ass off but I can still do this", I eventually figured it out after that. If you are rocking previous PTs, you have the skills - just need to ramp up the effort.

I did have to hone my technique as well, though. I suggest going through relevant threads on RC, LR, etc., and trying out some things. For example, one thing that works for me is to skip the toughest questions outright (parallels, convoluted structure questions, etc.), and come back at the end. This minimizes time pressure, so I finish the section in 30 mins., and then go clean up what's left. Time pressure kills - it's very hard to focus on that last passage when the clock is ticking. Also, I always do longest passages / questions set first. Same reason - so much easier to deal with a 5 question set at the end, instead of an 8 question set. For me, at least.

Thanks for the advice.

I've got about a fortnight until the Dec LSAT so I guess I should do whatever it takes until then.

[alex_cryp]

I took the June '10 LSAT and I thought the LR was super easy. The LG--which I am normally pretty good at killed me though. I think the thing to worry about is that they are coming out with more random game types that no one has seen before.

[almostthereee]

PT 57 was written by satan himself. Of course there's the dinosaurs but I don't remember how RC was on it as well. But yah, anyone that gets owned by 57 I just tell them to sleep it off. There's a reason for the ridiculous curve.

[benito]

I took the June '10 LSAT and I thought the LR was super easy. The LG--which I am normally pretty good at killed me though. I think the thing to worry about is that they are coming out with more random game types that no one has seen before.

I have no idea what people are talking about when they say stuff like this, how have any of the recent games (including June '10) been "random game types that no one has seen before"....There is nothing on that test, or any really in the past decade that deviates from the standard sequencing, grouping, or combination of both system. The Mulch game for example was hard only because it sounded weird and wasn't easy to get your mind around at first. But really it was no different then a sequencing game, actually easier than most because the # of possibilities was pretty limited. There are no "random game types" on the LSAT.

[Curry]

I beg to differ. There is an alphabet and words game somewhere in the early games.

[aesis]

I just took PT 57 and it kicked my ass.

Again. Just shrug it off, don't let it affect you. Learn from the mistakes, though!

[robotclubmember]

Took PT 57 timed today. It wasn't so bad.

I got -0 on LG (-4 LR1 / -2 RC / -1 LR2). Mauve dinosaurs is really tough. But it's LG sections like this where you really need to have a tight methodology for attacking the easy games. I had 15 minutes left over for mauve dinosaurs, and I used all of them, lol. That's really the only advice I can give.

I really like the Ace the LSAT Logic Games book, because it's logic games are unrealistically difficult compared to what you normally encounter on a real LSAT. They wrote 16 of their own LG sections. Imagine it as nothing but a large series of mauve dinosaur games. They are all difficult. If you can do those, you can do anything.

[northwood]

pt 57 is very hard.

I think there is a beginning of a trend of combining game types for one or more games. While these hybrid games seem very similar to the games in the 40s, if you dont read the rules carefully, you will miss a major deduction and ruin the game. RC is getting more dense, and the questions are becoming more abstract- on the october test there wasnt a what word is missing type of question in the comparative reading passage, which forces you to go back and hunt for the question answers.

THis could be a response to the increasing number of people prepping for the exams, and sitting for more than one LSAT. Just follow your rules and techniques, and keep confident and calm, and you will be okay.

[tomwatts]

THis could be a response to the increasing number of people prepping for the exams, and sitting for more than one LSAT. Just follow your rules and techniques, and keep confident and calm, and you will be okay.

I've wondered repeatedly if LSAC even gives any thought to this, and the conclusion I keep coming to is "Not at all." The guys that I hear from LSAC talk about the exam seem to be utterly clueless about prep. They know that it exists, but they have no idea who teaches what, or what's considered normal, or anything. I think that the percentage of people who do hardcore prep is still a fairly small percentage of the test-taking population, so they don't even need to respond to prep. They just need to keep coming up with variations on themes.

One thing that sometimes gets people is that even the most heavily recently updated strategies are usually based around the tests numbered in the 40's (and sometimes much earlier), so those tests — being the tests for which certain methods were in fact designed — seem easier by comparison. Since people don't begin by saying, "Okay, dinosaurs, mulch, and Flyhigh vs. Getaway... let me design strategies based on these game types," normally whatever strategies you learned were designed for similar but not identical games, and you have to adapt slightly. I credit TLS for drawing my attention to the fact that there even was something different about the dinos, and I redid my game typology partly in response to that, so I'm teaching some pretty darn current stuff. But a lot of LSAT stuff is still (in reality) talking about tests from the 20's and 30's, which are similar but not identical.

[tng11]

...

[gambelda]

This was weird. I found Dinos easy as hell but got wrecked on LR. I also scored a 168 and struggled more on PT's like 58??? What's the difference between the two (57 and 58)?

I'm starting to think I just have to get lucky that LG's is really difficult on my exam so I can do well on that and make up points I owuld have lost on LR or RC

[northwood]

when I was prepping for October, I thought that pts 53-60 were very hard. I actually started scoring lower than my average ( 2-3 points) for pts 53,55,57,58. When I hit pts 59 and 60 I went back into my usual scoring range. Ended up scoring 2 points lower than my best ever pt on the pt 61.

I think it just takes a few tests to get used to the LR questions. There are more difficult/ wordier questions in the first 13 than what we have been used to seeing on the newer ones. The good side is there are less parallel questions!

As for the games, just stick to your strategy. There are a difficult and easy games on the first 2 pages, and the last game was easier. The hardest game imo was game 3 on the real deal. Same for the RC section.

best of luck and keep your confidence high!