Are you ready for total DOMINATION?!! (Feb. 2011) Forum

[wolfpack37]

by the bay. Right next to the airport. I am testing at Cal Western. The test should be over before the show starts as long as you have good proctors. I doubt there's going to be any planes doing trial runs before the show starts or at least that's what I am hoping.

Aright, I'm at SDSU so shouldn't be a problem for me anyways. I figured there was a slight chance the airshow would be in the Qualcomm Stadium area haha

[spek]

Hi, could someone help me understand PT 61 LR II Q 23? I can't find an explanation on manhattan lsat and not understanding this questions is bugging me. thanks!

[vissidarte27]

Because my luck wasn't crappy enough already, the carbon monoxide detector in my building has detected some kind of gas and I may or may not have carbon monoxide (or some other kind of) poisoning.

Is there anything else that could go wrong, LSAT gods? Anything at all? (Please don't kill my loved ones.)

[Pleasye]

Because my luck wasn't crappy enough already, the carbon monoxide detector in my building has detected some kind of gas and I may or may not have carbon monoxide (or some other kind of) poisoning.

Is there anything else that could go wrong, LSAT gods? Anything at all? (Please don't kill my loved ones.)

are you serious? I hope you're okay

[DarkPhantom]

Wow, sorry about the CO2 stuff, atleast you're alive! (really though, they found some kids out cold when they left their garage door open)

What is everyone doing right now?

[Pleasye]

What is everyone doing right now?

Reviewing yesterdays PT (last one for the week!), doing some LG's and then going to work out!

[vissidarte27]

Because my luck wasn't crappy enough already, the carbon monoxide detector in my building has detected some kind of gas and I may or may not have carbon monoxide (or some other kind of) poisoning.

Is there anything else that could go wrong, LSAT gods? Anything at all? (Please don't kill my loved ones.)

are you serious? I hope you're okay

Yeah, totally serious. Condo association president called the emergency guys who are on their way here to check it out. He told us to stay put and open a window, so that's what I'm doing.

I'm trying to imagine the addendum I'd write if I bomb this test -- scabies that wouldn't go away, boss having a mental breakdown, Canada not letting my test materials across the border, having to go standby in Chicago because work was canceled in San Diego due to aforementioned scabies and breakdown, and now possible noxious gas poisoning -- I'm not sure anyone would believe it, frankly. If it hadn't happened to me, I sure wouldn't.

[vissidarte27]

Wow, sorry about the CO2 stuff, atleast you're alive! (really though, they found some kids out cold when they left their garage door open)

What is everyone doing right now?

Picking out which LSAT piece I'm going to take with me to warmup on Saturday. Probably dinos for LG since I got them all right and thought it was fairly easy, a page of LR from PT56 (my favorite PT in the whole wide world), and I'm not sure about LR yet.

[Pleasye]

Yeah, totally serious. Condo association president called the emergency guys who are on their way here to check it out. He told us to stay put and open a window, so that's what I'm doing.

I'm trying to imagine the addendum I'd write if I bomb this test -- scabies that wouldn't go away, boss having a mental breakdown, Canada not letting my test materials across the border, having to go standby in Chicago because work was canceled in San Diego due to aforementioned scabies and breakdown, and now possible noxious gas poisoning -- I'm not sure anyone would believe it, frankly. If it hadn't happened to me, I sure wouldn't.

Yeah, it's a little bit ridiculous the amount of shit that has happened to you. At least you'll have a legitimate addendum to write if necessary. But it won't be necessary, you will be fine!

[wolfpack37]

Hi, could someone help me understand PT 61 LR II Q 23? I can't find an explanation on manhattan lsat and not understanding this questions is bugging me. thanks!

Do you mean section 2? or the 2nd LR so section 4?

[DarkPhantom]

Anyone take PT 62?

[Dotson525]

Anyone take PT 62?

Yes I did. Let me know your question will be around.

[DarkPhantom]

So my question was, if you knew the section you had was experimental, saw the RC28 Qs and they were a bit tough, would it be a bad idea to not really put in 100% effort, save it for sections that count? (This is if I'm 90% sure...)

[Pleasye]

So my question was, if you knew the section you had was experimental, saw the RC28 Qs and they were a bit tough, would it be a bad idea to not really put in 100% effort, save it for sections that count? (This is if I'm 90% sure...)

That's never a good idea because you'll never know what the experimental section is.

[Dotson525]

So my question was, if you knew the section you had was experimental, saw the RC28 Qs and they were a bit tough, would it be a bad idea to not really put in 100% effort? (This is if I'm 90% sure...)

Personally I would put 100% into it, just because I'm suspious. However, if you think in terms of gaining momentum it would be wise to try your best because the other sections will seem easier. Also, (since its RC) will help you later in quickly reading through LR or another RC section. For me at times I noticed better LR performance after completing an RC section. If your worried about losing energy, then maybe it would be ok to lessen the level of input. This could put you in a bind if you find out after that the LR sections only had 24 and 25 questions. Though, I know its rare for a 28 question RC its no guarantee that it won't happen.

Oh, if your someone that continues to worry about a section, then not doing 100% is definitely not good.
I remember after completing the RC sections not feeling so confident and worried. I believe it affected me in the other parts as well.

[DarkPhantom]

Yeah, I'm putting in 100% to everything, its just that PT62 threw me off, cause that exp reading comp was so exhausting, I felt sluggish on the 2nd one.

Thanks guys!

[trudat15]

So my question was, if you knew the section you had was experimental, saw the RC28 Qs and they were a bit tough, would it be a bad idea to not really put in 100% effort, save it for sections that count? (This is if I'm 90% sure...)

Bad idea - last test was 102 questions, and no one really saw that coming (hasnt been done yet). You never know...

[fosterp]

Hi, could someone help me understand PT 61 LR II Q 23? I can't find an explanation on manhattan lsat and not understanding this questions is bugging me. thanks!

The stimulus makes a statement about the group of films - that all of the ones in the old format cannot all be transferred before some of them disintegrate. It then concludes that a subgroup of those films also share that same problem. However this is a jump in logic because it is possible that all old hollywood films have already been converted already. Its quite possible that this problem of deterioration exists only films from other countries, or only of new films that are still on the old format. Therefore, for the conclusion to be sound then there must be at least some old holywood films that exist only in their original format.

[suspicious android]

So my question was, if you knew the section you had was experimental, saw the RC28 Qs and they were a bit tough, would it be a bad idea to not really put in 100% effort, save it for sections that count? (This is if I'm 90% sure...)

Such a strange idea, I'll never understand how people feel comfortable taking these crazy risks on gut feelings. Every test administration there's someone who writes about how they were so sure section X was experimental, because it was too hard, to easy, too strange, too many questions, too few, whatever.

[spek]

Hi, could someone help me understand PT 61 LR II Q 23? I can't find an explanation on manhattan lsat and not understanding this questions is bugging me. thanks!

The stimulus makes a statement about the group of films - that all of the ones in the old format cannot all be transferred before some of them disintegrate. It then concludes that a subgroup of those films also share that same problem. However this is a jump in logic because it is possible that all old hollywood films have already been converted already. Its quite possible that this problem of deterioration exists only films from other countries, or only of new films that are still on the old format. Therefore, for the conclusion to be sound then there must be at least some old holywood films that exist only in their original format.

oh, thanks I actually meant LR section 2 not the second LR. Sorry it wasn't clear but thanks for responding!

[spek]

Hi, could someone help me understand PT 61 LR II Q 23? I can't find an explanation on manhattan lsat and not understanding this questions is bugging me. thanks!

Do you mean section 2? or the 2nd LR so section 4?

Section 2, the parallel reasoning question.

[trudat15]

Hi, could someone help me understand PT 61 LR II Q 23? I can't find an explanation on manhattan lsat and not understanding this questions is bugging me. thanks!

Do you mean section 2? or the 2nd LR so section 4?

Section 2, the parallel reasoning question.

BH -> FY
FY -M-> 2S
Therefore: BH -M-> 2S

D.
L -> PS
PS -M-> NRO
Therefore: L -M-> NRO


It's pretty much a identical diagram. The rest of the answers mix too many Mosts in there or dont have the same inference (the inference being: a -> b -m-> c = a -m-> c
Which is an invalid connection.

[DarkPhantom]

For the PT 62 LG sections, did everyone use molds for the first 3 games?

p.s. the 3rd game w/ the meetings annoyed me, any simple diagram?

[spek]

Thanks so much, That's a really clear explanation. I was initially having trouble because I couldn't figure out the flaw, then I finally realized that the sequence it creates doesn't allow a valid jump to BH-M-> 2S.

[motiontodismiss]

I'm so not ready for this. Considering my best 5-section PT was a 167 and 164 for the more recent ones, I may be chasing a dead lead however. I've all but mostly given up.