Please do mine! I have scored a 168 twice on Oct and Nov Official Tests. Seem to not be able to get out of the 168 zone... Taking January test as well. Goal score is 173. I have taken Kevin's group 180 MC which helped me increase my score from -6 to -1/3, and have taken live classes and also tutoring as well.
hi! would love to be added also
@NewStudent It's definitely not 100% consistent yet but one thing I did was a mindset change to think about each drill or section or PT as untimed and turning off the timer to forget about that. Stressing about time made me more stressed and interfered with my concentration!
@adelaide.willert did you have any specific types of untimed drilling you did?
@Lindsey Gartner yes actually I am doing better! How is it going for you?
@Lindsey Gartner Yup! Exactly same situation. I was in the lower 160s for about 2 months now. The best I have gotten is a 166 but can't seem to get it consistently into the upper 160s.
did anyone not pick B because of the wording in B being too strong? I thought moral considerations should be given SIGNIFICANT weight was too strong, so I picked E instead. I picked E because I thought some of the prudent reasons to oppose judicial sincerity was how judges need to balance other obligations.
Hi, I am looking for advice for how to get into the high 160s and lower 170s by November test. My last PTs are averaging 164 with LR averaging -4 and RC averaging -6. I do full PT BRs and WAJs and have read the loophole. Looking for any advice! Thanks!
I picked E and was honestly pretty confident but realized why its wrong: my logic which led to my conclusion was that E implied that it would reduce car driving retail purchases, but my logic requires assuming that most of these ppl didn’t actually drive their car to say, order pickup or see the product first or try it on. Also, E says that ppl bought as a RESULT of DMA not that they bought through DMA.
@melodicvanilla Agreed. This is such a common place to get stuck in... Not sure how to improve to get into the lower 170s