Most difficult PTs 40-62 (seeking an unscientic opinion) Forum

[justbubbles]

You don't have to rank them or get into specifics as to certain questions/sections; I'm just seeking an unscientific opinion. That's all.

It seems as though (for me at least) PTs 48-52 was quite challenging (especially the LR questions).

[MarineLaw]

I will second that.

I did a 7 section marathon today (1/2 PT 49, 1/2 54 + 51 LG). I got owned on the 4 LR sections. I mean no shit owned. I normally miss 2-3 per section, I missed 7 in a section. Not sure if it was fatigue (this is my 4th day in a row of >5 hours of studying) but man...

Yep. RC takes me longer, and the LG get easier. I should have started taking these more recent tests sooner...

[justbubbles]

I normally miss 2-3 per section, I missed 7 in a section.

My goodness! Hear hear! Ditto. The LRs are surprisingly difficult in this range. And the consensus extends TLS (friends have said so, that's why I wanted to gauge TLS feedback).

Me too. I usually get 2-4 wrong, but in those PTs (which I did recently, well-rested and all) I got anywhere from 5-11 wrong.

Thanks for sharing!

[gaud]

LR on 49 did seem unusually difficult to me as well

[coldshoulder]

Hm, LR on PT 49 was my best LR score ever out of about 20 tests.

LR on 45, however, owned me. I'm generally -1 or -2, and I was -5 on both LR sections.

[gaud]

Hm, LR on PT 49 was my best LR score ever out of about 20 tests.

LR on 45, however, owned me. I'm generally -1 or -2, and I was -5 on both LR sections.

Hmm.. on PT 45 I was within my average. After beginning my review on 49 it seems that the problems were not necessarily harder, just more complex (specifically in that inferences were a bit more difficult). Maybe just an off day, takin tomorrow off for some rest.

[justbubbles]

Re. PT 49.

Yep, I got raped on PT 49 in general, mostly on LRs though.

I try and not worry about that too much.

The consensus seem to be that PTs late 40s/early 50s seem rather difficult than the rest. So no biggie.

[kls120]

dang i'm so happy to see this thread.

I did 48, 49, and 50 for Monday through Wednesday respectively and I felt miserable because I was no where of getting near to my goal. Last week I got it up to missing about 2~3 per sections for PT in 30s. But I missed 4 and 5 for 48, 7 and 5 for 49, and 8 and 6 for 50.

It's good to see that I'm not the only one struggling.

[Campagnolo]

It seems to me that standardized tests are, well, standardized. Especially with a test as well written as the LSAT.

[Curry]

Whichever one had the dino game

[justbubbles]

It seems to me that standardized tests are, well, standardized. Especially with a test as well written as the LSAT.

True, but that's only from a structural standpoint.

The universal application and impact of these tests, however, is not all that standardized; a credible argument could be made that it isn't most of the times.

If Persons X, Y, Z take standardized tests, then we can gauge their performance on a level-playing field. But, if Person U or Person V were to take tests that are far more complicated than the tests taken by Persons X, Y, Z, then clearly the 'standardized' element is arguably invalid simply because Persons U and/or V are disadvantaged...

Well, you see where I'm going with this.

[gaud]

dang i'm so happy to see this thread.

I did 48, 49, and 50 for Monday through Wednesday respectively and I felt miserable because I was no where of getting near to my goal. Last week I got it up to missing about 2~3 per sections for PT in 30s. But I missed 4 and 5 for 48, 7 and 5 for 49, and 8 and 6 for 50.

It's good to see that I'm not the only one struggling.

Lol it's interesting that my average is about -2 _ -3 and for PT 49 I missed 7 and 5,respectively

[leche]

Whichever one had the dino game

Just took it today and got a 163 (my average is a 167-171). The mauve dinosaurs weren't even the issue (I did miss three due to random guesses as I ran out of time), it was the LR sections. I usually miss 2-4 on LR and I missed 5 and 9 respectively. Anyone else have this much trouble? (It's PT 57 by the way.)

[justbubbles]

dang i'm so happy to see this thread.

Thanks! That's why I made this thread, ie. to seek an unscientific consensus. And it confirmed my doubts that the LRs on PTs 48-51 are just brutal. So no one should feel awful if they did bad.

Also, here's some quick observations:

PTs 51 and below:

-> LGs are somewhat tough and time-consuming (ie. advanced linear, circular, etc)
-> LRs are fairly decent;
-> RCs are okay.

PTs 52 and above:

-> LGs are fairly normal with grouping, sequencing, etc. (but some odd ones notwithstanding, ie. dino game, "rule substitution", etc)
-> LRs are much more harder and challenging, also more verbose in terms of content;
-> RCs ditto, more challenging than RCs before.

Just my 2 cents.

[Campagnolo]

It seems to me that standardized tests are, well, standardized. Especially with a test as well written as the LSAT.

True, but that's only from a structural standpoint.

The universal application and impact of these tests, however, is not all that standardized; a credible argument could be made that it isn't most of the times.

If Persons X, Y, Z take standardized tests, then we can gauge their performance on a level-playing field. But, if Person U or Person V were to take tests that are far more complicated than the tests taken by Persons X, Y, Z, then clearly the 'standardized' element is arguably invalid simply because Persons U and/or V are disadvantaged...

Well, you see where I'm going with this.

I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with this. For any given admissions cycle, there are people applying with LSAT scores from a five-year spread. I don't think anyone can say that people who took June 08 are disadvantaged over someone applying with a score from December 10 (or any other random administration you choose).

Isn't it more likely that you just had a bad day?

Note: edited for grammar