Page 1 of 1
June 2007: What was with that ridiculous curve?
Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 12:05 am
by SupraVln180
I am retaking in Dec and my last 4 PTs, have been a Raw Score of 87,87,89, 89 which all scaled to 168. Today I take the June 2007, test and get a 164 with a raw score of 85/100. Wtf? Was that test really that easy and I just missed easy questions? Should I be worried with December coming up so soon? I need a 167+ at the very least
Re: June 2007: What was with that ridiculous curve?
Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 12:37 am
by Anomaly
No don't be worried. That test really punished you if you were complacent or didn't read super carefully. That was my worst PT as well, but try and learn a lesson from each of those 15 mistakes. Forget the curve.
Re: June 2007: What was with that ridiculous curve?
Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:34 am
by yzero1
This was also my one of my worst PTs and its curve did seem quite ridiculous considering its difficulty. Not sure if this applies to you, but this was also the first comparative passage I did, so my lack of familiarity with the RC style may have explained my below-average performance on RC specifically. Don't worry if you scored below your average though - this was certainly an unusual test.
Re: June 2007: What was with that ridiculous curve?
Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 6:43 am
by niederbomb
Just took this test. I went -2 RC, -1 LR, -1 LR, and then a whopping -6 on LG.
I hope that LG was exceptionally hard. That digits game at the beginning was ridiculous.
Re: June 2007: What was with that ridiculous curve?
Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:30 pm
by SupraVln180
I went perfect on that LG, but went -9 on LR and -6 on RC
the digits game was tough to wrap your head around but once you did, it was actually really easy, you knew the first two digits either were 2-4 or 1-2, then after that you could write out the possibilities
Re: June 2007: What was with that ridiculous curve?
Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 8:34 pm
by AshtonB
SupraVln180 wrote:I am retaking in Dec and my last 4 PTs, have been a Raw Score of 87,87,89, 89 which all scaled to 168. Today I take the June 2007, test and get a 164 with a raw score of 85/100. Wtf? Was that test really that easy and I just missed easy questions? Should I be worried with December coming up so soon? I need a 167+ at the very least
Yeah, I got a raw score of 83/100 and was bitterly disappointed by the final number. Also, the RC section was noticeably harder than usual.
Re: June 2007: What was with that ridiculous curve?
Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 8:39 pm
by justadude55
SupraVln180 wrote:I went perfect on that LG, but went -9 on LR and -6 on RC
the digits game was tough to wrap your head around but once you did, it was actually really easy, you knew the first two digits either were 2-4 or 1-2, then after that you could write out the possibilities
are u serious? the digits game is the easiest game in LSAT history. u just make 2 diff sketches, and it should take u 4 minutes or less. if u struggled on this one, rethink december.
Re: June 2007: What was with that ridiculous curve?
Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 8:41 pm
by rekopter
<flashback to June 2007 which was my actual LSAT>
Re: June 2007: What was with that ridiculous curve?
Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 6:10 pm
by afLSAT
So happy to see this post . . .
I just took this PT and got -0 LG, -1 RC, -3 LR . . . FOR A 174! Wtf ... Frustrating. I guess it is the curve.
Re: June 2007: What was with that ridiculous curve?
Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 9:21 pm
by northwood
dont worry about the curve. Focus on the raw score. You have no idea what the curve will be in December, but you should have an idea what your raw scoring range should be. Use that as a guide.
Re: June 2007: What was with that ridiculous curve?
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 4:23 am
by hallbd16
northwood wrote:dont worry about the curve. Focus on the raw score. You have no idea what the curve will be in December, but you should have an idea what your raw scoring range should be. Use that as a guide.
Forum seafaring. Needed this comment. Thanks.
Re: June 2007: What was with that ridiculous curve?
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 4:19 pm
by arcanecircle
SupraVln180 wrote:I went perfect on that LG, but went -9 on LR and -6 on RC
the digits game was tough to wrap your head around but once you did, it was actually really easy, you knew the first two digits either were 2-4 or 1-2, then after that you could write out the possibilities
I felt the same way about that game, I was freaking out at first then realized how easy it was. Someone should compile a list of the weirdest games they've thrown in there. My personal favorite is PT10 Game #3, total tribute to Lewis Caroll

Re: June 2007: What was with that ridiculous curve?
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:25 pm
by CyanIdes Of March
arcanecircle wrote:SupraVln180 wrote:I went perfect on that LG, but went -9 on LR and -6 on RC
the digits game was tough to wrap your head around but once you did, it was actually really easy, you knew the first two digits either were 2-4 or 1-2, then after that you could write out the possibilities
I felt the same way about that game, I was freaking out at first then realized how easy it was. Someone should compile a list of the weirdest games they've thrown in there. My personal favorite is PT10 Game #3, total tribute to Lewis Caroll

PT 12, Game 4 was the easiest game I've ever done. It's more or less how well can you follow simple instructions. Once you apply all the rules the questions are basically just "What is this plus this?". Takes ~3 minutes.