This kind of scares me b/c pithypike's RC thread is based on, i'm guessing, the old format..."I wish I'd known sooner how much the test format has changed for Reading Comp, and how that had an affect on my score with PT."
any pointers?
This kind of scares me b/c pithypike's RC thread is based on, i'm guessing, the old format..."I wish I'd known sooner how much the test format has changed for Reading Comp, and how that had an affect on my score with PT."
Want to continue reading?
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
cahwc12 wrote:Unlike LR and some LG, I think most of the RC from earlier tests are still great practice, as well.
I did notice in my own prep I tended to average -2 to -4 on RC from earlier than mid 50's or so, and PT60+ I went between -7 and -11. I went -7 on test day.
With the exception of 64 (maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, don't have my sheet in front of me), the other RC didn't seem bad at all, but for whatever reasons I was always missing more in those. I took the 60's interspersed with other RC, too.
64's last question was one of the most brutal RC questions i've seen...
I didn't think June's RC was bad at all, in fact I thought it was the easiest of the 60's I've seen. It even had a couple questions where I was like "seriously? is that a joke?" because the answer seemed so obvious (you'll know if/when you take PT66 RC).
However I was told by two separate people, one who averaged -0 on RC, that the experimental RC from June was by far the most difficult they had ever seen. I don't know if that's a sign of things to come...
Those early LR and LGs are, for the most part, good practice. Logic hasn't changed much.cahwc12 wrote:Unlike LR and some LG, I think most of the RC from earlier tests are still great practice, as well.