PT 56: Hard, kooky Forum

[AshtonB]

LG: -2
LR1: 0
LR2: -8(!!!)
RC: -7

Still ended up with a 165. Still...anyone else think the second half of the test was unusually hard? I made a LOT of careless mistakes in the second LG portion, but even so, some of those questions were just brutal. And the RC section was hardly a cakewalk, either.

[niederbomb]

Haha...This test really wasn't a cakewalk.

The LG on this test was tricky, but the RC was pretty easy aside from the Cakewalk passage. I missed -2 on the first LR section, and -0 on the second, so I don't really get your breakdown.

[AshtonB]

Haha...This test really wasn't a cakewalk.

The LG on this test was tricky, but the RC was pretty easy aside from the Cakewalk passage. I missed -2 on the first LR section, and -0 on the second, so I don't really get your breakdown.

Are you thinking of a different PT? There was no literal cakewalk passage. That was an earlier PT (54?)

[niederbomb]

You're right...sorry I had them all mixed up in my review PDF file.

But the comments about LG and LR on that test still stand.

[FlanAl]

This PT is what ruined my confidence a few days before the october test. I cancelled my score. I hate this PT.

[SchopenhauerFTW]

.

[paulshortys10]

The Rc wasnt bad...LG I missed 4 which is rare.

First lr I fuvked up terribly with a -11..I managed a 160..

165 on the very next one though:)