Hardest recent LR sections? Forum

[LDVM4334]

In order to prepare myself for the worst case scenario, I'm combining sections so that I end up with RC-LR-RC-LR, and am looking for some of the known harder/hardest recent LR sections to include in there.

I still have PT's 64/68 to take tomorrow and Saturday, so don't spoil and mention if those are hard or not!!!

I am a multiple time re-taker, so 64/68 are the only ones I have NEVER seen other than like, the super old ones (pre-20). Should also note that I haven't taken the test since June 11.

Anyway, help appreciated.

[TheMostDangerousLG]

If you've already taken all of the recent ones and don't want to know whether 64 or 68 are hard, I'd recommend looking at your old tests and see which ones *you* found hard (i.e., which ones you did the worst on).

[LDVM4334]

If you've already taken all of the recent ones and don't want to know whether 64 or 68 are hard, I'd recommend looking at your old tests and see which ones *you* found hard (i.e., which ones you did the worst on).

I don't mean I've taken them all recently...My last actual test was in June 11, but since most of the ones I had were marked up, I was only able to use mostly the ones since then...but I found an "alternative" source for all of the tests spare 66-68, so now I can use them again without just erasing the hell out of everything or buying it twice.

[nyjets2090]

Dec '09, and if that wasn't hard you had Noguchi to go with it.

[LDVM4334]

Dec '09, and if that wasn't hard you had Noguchi to go with it.

In my head I sort of remembered this one being notoriously hard. Thanks, I'll just use both sections.

Other suggestions welcome, too. I did a google forum search but still couldn't come up with exactly what I was looking for.

[magickware]

PT 62 LR kicked my ass hard.

Got -8/-6 respectively.

And I got anything between a -0 to -3 for each LR section in my previous 10 PTs.

So, ya, I'd say PT 62 is hard.

[Clyde Frog]

PT 62 LR kicked my ass hard.

Got -8/-6 respectively.

And I got anything between a -0 to -3 for each LR section in my previous 10 PTs.

So, ya, I'd say PT 62 is hard.

I'd say that was a fluke. You may have lost your composure early on as pt 62 throws you a tough RC and throws you a curveball early on in S2Q8. The test did have a lenient curve of -14, so hopefully the RC and LG weren't too bad.

[ws81086n]

A great starting point for figuring this out is looking at the number of posts and topics on the MLSAT forums for a given section, as well as the number of views for the individual questions. Seems to correlate reasonably well with section difficulty, and it obviously makes sense that it would, too.

[guano]

Whichever test was October 2011. You could get 15 wrong and still score 170

[Clyde Frog]

Whichever test was October 2011. You could get 15 wrong and still score 170

That one had a curve that allowed you to miss 13 and get a 170. The December test of that year had a -14 curve.

[LDVM4334]

PT 62 LR kicked my ass hard.

Got -8/-6 respectively.

And I got anything between a -0 to -3 for each LR section in my previous 10 PTs.

So, ya, I'd say PT 62 is hard.

Oddly enough this was the one I ended up doing (had already printed them before the PT59 suggestion).

Went -2 on both LR's. Missed/got stuck on 2 rather easy ones on the first one, but got lucky on S2Q20 which just had me fucking baffled.

A great starting point for figuring this out is looking at the number of posts and topics on the MLSAT forums for a given section, as well as the number of views for the individual questions. Seems to correlate reasonably well with section difficulty, and it obviously makes sense that it would, too.

good idea. thanks.