Hi,

I've been running through the PTs quickly and was beginning to cut into the newer PTs (50ish and up), so I began to take the 30s and 40s as sections. On the newer PTs, I had been consistently scoring -2 to -3 on each LR, while on the older ones I have been missing 4 or 5 each. While this may seem inconsequential, it could be the difference between a 17x and a high 160s on test day. Are the old LR just harder, or am I getting lazier/ rushed as I near the exam. Also, on the newer PTs I have been in the 169-172 zone every time. How have other high scorers broken the low 170s plateau to a more consistent high average? Thanks guys.

I focus on missing less in order to get above 170...
but seriously, there isn't a technique to break above 170, just keep working on weak sections.

Also, the old LR are a lot lengthier and a little more common sense than the newer airtight logic. Thus, it just kind of depends on what suits you better, therefore it is completely anecdotal as to whether it is easier or harder.

plateaus don't necessarily mean you've capped out, rather (or at least, this is how I like to think about it), they're an indication that one hasn't learned something new in a while. i think generally when people are plateauing during their prep, they're likely doing the same thing over and over again sorta mindlessly. you have to sorta beat into your brain every mistake you make when you're in the high sixties and seventies in order to gain points. it's been years but i remember problems that i got wrong on tests, since i ended up spending hours trying to grasp the particular logic of the question/game/passage.

not sure if this is going to be helpful.

I find newer LR significantly easier then older tests, by quite a margin. I usually go -3-4 on older sections and -0-1-2 on newer tests. I feel like older sections are trickier in the stimulus, and newer tests might be trickier in the answer choices. The logic today is much more formulaic to me then older tests. Just my opinion.

As for breaking 170, get less questions wrong. Kidding aside, find where you lose points, and address it. Even if you only miss 2/10 parallel reasoning questions, but never miss a weaken, then parallel would be your weakness and it needs to be addressed. It's hard to move up from the top scores, but I don't believe in plateaus either, Its not like you cap out at exactly 90 questions correct, any other day you might have gotten 88 or 92. Just address whatever inconsistency exists.