Q23

How do we know that Chlorine is the MOST damaging of constituent elements of CFCs?

The passage only says Chlorine is very damaging but no support for it being MOST damaging of CFC elements.

yeah, but it's a 2-star for 72/77 LG. That's too low and same as same of the easiest LG in recent history for PT-69 and PT-71 LG.

How many average misses make for a 2-star, 3 star, 4-star and 5-star respectively?

Can 7sage have a way to see the sample size and such info?

@lschoolgo550 The difficulty for the sections is assigned based on how 7Sage users perform on every section. I think the specific breakdown is proprietary, but roughly the better 7Sagers do, the fewer points that section is going to get.

I think games are a strength for the 7Sage community in general, as only ~5 of the LG sections are rated 5-point, as opposed to RC sections where nearly half of them are. They tend to be the ones where there are no fast, easy games at all. 7Sagers might have been able to breeze through the first three games of PT72 and had enough time to answer a couple of the 5 questions for game 4, making the section look OK overall. Same for PT 77, where game 3 was more time consuming than difficult, and game 4 hinged on a key inference to become a breeze. Certainly lots of people here could have done the first 2 games in 10 minutes total and have 25 min left to spend on the last two.

So, I wouldn't worry too much about the section points - you are likely not exactly the same as the average of all 7Sage users, and you'll have your own strengths and weaknesses (for example there's virtually no such thing as an "easy" LG section for me personally).

why can't you use laptop webcam? I use my laptop webcam to record all the timed sections I take.

It'd be amazing if a guru could do such a video with never-before-seen PT-77 RC/LR.

Inspiring to see that it's humanly possible to do an fresh unseen rc/lr section within 20 mins

yes, RC has become harder to score high on in recent PTs unless one scores perfect in it almost consistently.

it's easier to simply have the previous scoring be retrievable as you can't note what you answered for every question

@jy-ping said:

Is there anyway we can add a grader to the problem set sections?

@lschoolgo550 said:

add scoring for retake

@danbaum17224 I know we were talking about this (retake scores) before—I personally would record my original score in the "note" (you could record LR/LR/LG/RC scores in the note as well).

i think LR has changed 70s and has gotten more subtle and less formal.

Related to the grader, is there a way to add scoring for retake of a PT without deleting the original score sheet?

@jy-ping said:

PrepTest C 2?

Any chance that LSAC will be releasing more February/undisclosed tests?

They haven't released any Feb tests after year 2000 except II-C

Can you describe your approach to "drilling"

how were you able to do like 14 PTs (66-76, A, B, june pt) in the week before the test, and how were your scores on these?

@joet2312294

Can you describe your approach to "drilling"

how were you able to do like 14 PTs (66-76, A, B, june pt) in the week before the test and how,were your scores on these?

href="/forums/profile/8584/ChoboPie" class="Username">ChoboPie

RoleTitleMember">Member(/s

pan)

an hour ago

38 karma Flag

@limanmhu586 No problem!

Short answer: Fundamentals first, then PTs.

Now, I don't know if you suffer from this, but I had this insane grand plan to do EVERYTHING leading up to my retake. I told myself I was going to do the Cambridge drills for PT 1-38, redo them as full PTs, then do PT 39-76 twice over as full PTs. I planned to do ~200 sudoku puzzles, read Economist and Scientific American, and picked out about 20 dense books to read in my free time. Now here's what I actually did, most of which you should not:

I procrastinated until 3 weeks before test day, and started with the Cambridge packet drills for PT 1-38, reviewed LR pretty thoroughly, and then really rushed review on LG and RC. I spent time reviewing tough/iffy Logical Reasoning questions (this is the section that benefits by far the most from review imo), and found it immensely helpful to circle questions I was less than 100% certain about, and making sure I came back to understand what tripped me up. By the time I finished the Cambridge drills, I was less than a week away from test day. Over that period of time, I went through PTs 66-76, and reviewed poorly. I did do the June PT, PT A, and PT 60, but didn't have time to see anything else. I probably put in some 20-hour days, and because I waited so long, I was definitely feeling burnt out leading up to test day.

Out of that dumpster fire, I found the following helpful:

Make sure your fundamentals are solid. The easiest way to do this is by using the old PTs for drills. Once you have that down, and know that you can tackle just about any kind of question if you had sufficient time, move onto full length PTs.

Make sure you have a really good handle on LR. I think this is the core of the test, and fundamentals are what make you consistent here. For LG and RC, try to develop a personalized technique that feels rock-solid to you. This really boosted my confidence, and allowed me to feel comfortable even on killer games or passages.

Another reason for making sure your fundamentals are rock solid before moving onto PTs: over the course of doing a bunch of each type of question/game/passage, I started to realize the subtleties that made easy questions extremely fast, and hard questions very doable and for the most part painless. There are a lot of subtle things that show up again and again, and it's easiest to see this when doing drills. PTs are an excellent opportunity to put everything together once your fundamentals are solid.

Let me know if you have any more questions, and sorry for writing so much!

The choice clearly mentions that they had "lower pre-program" achievement, which strongly suggests they were not as good as those who completed when beginning the program. This provides an alternate explanation of why those who completed ended up seeing increase in achievement because they were naturally better from the beginning.

B also informs us about those who successfully completed the program: if those who completed had better pre-program achievement than those who didn't, then it supports the idea that those who completed were naturally high achievers and didn't become so as a result of the program. That seems to weaken the argument.

I agree that it's a sufficient assumption not necessary. I wasted extra time on this q when saw no answer choice that was a NA but this question seems flawed.

well, what you are saying is contradictory. "why it's sophisticated" alone isn't an independent clause. if you're combining it with another clause "is because it's intelligible”, then you're simply winging your explanation. you then can't combine "is because it's intelligible” with the first independent clause about "one reason" because you have used this clause for the clause after "and". if you're applying a rule to justify something then you need to apply consistently which isn't the case here.

either way, this is digressing from the point of the thread and debating grammar here may likely be not much use.

one of the above posters had posted this, which is different from your or my reading of stim and still wouldn't explain away the issue in the OP with the question as according to this quote intelligibility would be a reason for Euro music's influence, which would then be a reason for its sophistication. so still "most sophisticated music" correlating with unintelligibility could be compatible with the argument in the stim.

the stimulus says being intelligible on its own is "a" reason for why European music has had such a strong influence throughout the world, but this is the reason why it is a sophisticated achievement.

So the stim is:

"One reason why euro music has had strong influence, and why it's sophisticated, is because it's intelligible"

"And" separates the clause from the first one, but both "it's because it's intelligible" and "one reason" apply to both questions posed in the middle of the sentence. The comma is used to separate only these two questions.

The clause isn't independent as "why it's sophisticated" alone isn't a complete thought or sentence.

Not really. "One reason" applies to both why European music has had influence, and why it's sophisticated.

@lschoolgo550.janson35

that's not really "the bar for sophistication" per the stim. Stim is only saying that being intelligible when independent of its original function is "a" reason for sophistication of Euro music.

That could hold true and you can still have unintelligibility correlating with "most sophisticated music" like the choice D says, and both stim and D can be compatible. Note that D is not just sophisticated music, it's "the most sophisticated music", a difference in degree.