<p>You're neglecting something important.</p>
<p>My composite score was around the same, but the sections I was working on (math and writing) both improved dramatically (60 points and 40 points respectively). This was a result of my work, not luck. You're right in that the composite was about the same, but I didn't get lucky on the math, I knew it way better. That 60 points was not luck. 20 points? Maybe luck. 40? Iffy, but possible. 60 points is practice out the yin-yang, not chance.</p>
<p>Same deal with writing. I didn't get lucky with an essay topic, I used techniques I'd practiced, because before I had never practiced an essay. I went from a score of 9 to a score of 11, which is what I predicted of myself. That raised my score (my score on the mutliple choice was constant, which further drives off your luck theory) from 710 to 750. Not luck.</p>
<p>Now, if my improvement was so dramatic in those sections, why did my overall composite go down 30 points to 2170? My CR score. I lost 130 points, I went from 770 to 640. A person normally scoring 640 might get lucky and get 680, or even as high as 700. </p>
<p>But 770? </p>
<p>Very unlikely. My score in CR was high the first time because I had practiced like a madman, and as for the second time I had very poor time management on CR and also didn't care about it because I was focused on the other sections. Was the 770 a fluke? No. I cared about it the first time, and was out of practice the second time. (And it isn't because I didn't try the second time--I did). The difference shows.</p>
<p>And another mistake is that you've just admitted that certain people can score very high consistently, meaning the argument that anything above 2200 is luck falls apart. Even if it was just 1 person that could do that (and it's obviously more), that 1 person would disprove the sweeping statement.</p>
<p>Lets analyze your logic on a slightly deeper level.</p>
<p>Let's say I studied my ass off from the womb and got extremely lucky on test day to end up with a 2100-2150. That would be around my ceiling, because I've done all the studying I could do and got as lucky as I could get. That means I wouldn't be able to score in the 2200 or 2300s, as I already hit my theoretical ceiling. The claim that anyone scoring in the 2150 area can score at or substantially above 2200 isn't true in all cases either, because it assumes that those scorers haven't hit a theoretical ceiling (and I say theoretical because I can't actually prove that people can top out at certain scores, though I think statistics might support the claim).</p>
<p>The bottom line is that intelligence is very important, hard work is very important, but luck . . . doesn't make that big a difference. It makes a difference, but by the prevailing logic on this thread, a person scoring a 2200 normally can get a 2400 with nothing but more luck--iffy. 2300 scorer maybe--single questions can do more to your score the closer they are to perfect, but luck can't give you a 200 point difference. Especially a difference of 130 points on a single section.</p>