Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Finally hit 170...

jtrevethanjtrevethan Free Trial Member
in General 22 karma

Scored PT 70 and got a 170 with -7 RC lol.

Took PT 81 (June) today and got a 166, -7 RC.

Conclusion: Fk RC

Comments

  • sillllyxosillllyxo Alum Member
    edited September 2017 708 karma

    RC was very very hard on PT 81. Recently took one and I got -4 took PT 81 and got -9. SMH.

  • LSATcantwinLSATcantwin Alum Member Sage
    13286 karma

    Sufficent Assumption - If you score -7 in reading comp on PT 70 and PT 81 then fk RC.

    Now your conclusion can be properly drawn.

    Also - Reading comp for me is this weird entity....it's either easy or hard. Nothing in between, and for whatever reason I don't line up with the consensus. Went -4 on PT 81's RC...and didn't think it too be that bad.

  • TheMikeyTheMikey Alum Member
    4196 karma

    @LSATcantwin said:
    Sufficent Assumption - If you score -7 in reading comp on PT 70 and PT 81 then fk RC.

    Now your conclusion can be properly drawn.

    Also - Reading comp for me is this weird entity....it's either easy or hard. Nothing in between, and for whatever reason I don't line up with the consensus. Went -4 on PT 81's RC...and didn't think it too be that bad.

    haha.. hmm let me diagram that...

    -7 RC --> fuck RC
    or maybe the contrapositive? /fuck RC --> /-7RC

  • Freddy_DFreddy_D Core Member
    2983 karma

    Congrats on that 170 though! That's no small feat!

  • Paul CaintPaul Caint Alum Member
    edited September 2017 3521 karma

    The RC passages, and particularly PT 81 (I took it yesterday), are very good at putting in information that sounds right but was never said. They typically do this by talking about what one group believes.

    AKA - a passage talks about "constructionists" and "evolutionists." Contructionists believe that the constitution should be interpreted as to the Framers' original intent. Evolutionists believe that the constitution is a living document, and should be interpreted to modern circumstance.

    An incorrect answer choice may say something like:

    "Evolutionists believe that the text of the constitution should be altered to fit modern situations."

    ^Tempting right? BUT WRONG!

    The passage never said that evolutionists wanted to CHANGE THE TEXT, they just believed it should be INTERPRETED differently.

    Felt like there was a lot of this on PT 81!!!

  • StellaBlueStellaBlue Alum Member
    185 karma

    @"Paul Caint" That was a really helpful observation, and one I've been struggling to explain myself. Thanks for putting it in words!

Sign In or Register to comment.