Page 1 of 1
PT 56: Hard, kooky
Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:54 pm
by 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.
Re: PT 56: Hard, kooky
Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:51 pm
by 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.
Re: PT 56: Hard, kooky
Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:55 pm
by AshtonB
niederbomb wrote: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?)
Re: PT 56: Hard, kooky
Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:57 pm
by 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.
Re: PT 56: Hard, kooky
Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 12:01 am
by FlanAl
This PT is what ruined my confidence a few days before the october test. I cancelled my score. I hate this PT.
Re: .
Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:11 am
by SchopenhauerFTW
.
Re: PT 56: Hard, kooky
Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 2:43 am
by 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:)