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

User avatar
Kabuo
Posts: 1114
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:53 am

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Postby Kabuo » Sat Jan 29, 2011 8:36 pm

Pleasye: Yeah, I've read that a lot on here, but it still sucks to confirm it. I'd prefer to think that after this test being an on and off part of my life for going on 9 months, I'd just mastered them. I went through all the games in the Kaplan 180 guide that I had never used, so hopefully that will keep me sharp.

And about taking the weekend off, you probably saw what I said a couple pages back, but I think it's a great idea. I know it was super hard for me to try to go a week without thinking about the LSAT at all, especially because I did my week off less than 2 weeks before test day, but I think it helped tremendously. First and only 180 PT was on PT 59, taken 3 days before the Oct exam and after a week long break. It was also right after my worst ever PT. Basically, if you can do the time off right, I think (and hope) it will do wonders for your confidence and performance.

User avatar
risktaker
Posts: 687
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:10 pm

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Postby risktaker » Sat Jan 29, 2011 8:38 pm

Fuck me! I should have done my research. Seems like the consensus is to avoid doing PT's in the 20s and 30s leading up to the new LSAT because the older LSATs are different. I think i found the reason why I am f'in up the older LR so bad. Looks like I wasted 20 bucks on getting the LSATs in the 20s. Guess I am just going to have to buy some LSATs in the 40s from cambridge. I will just use the 20s sections for experimentals on my next tests.

User avatar
Kabuo
Posts: 1114
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:53 am

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Postby Kabuo » Sat Jan 29, 2011 8:51 pm

Why get the 40s and not the 50s? The 50s are much more similar to the last few tests. And $20 for those 10 old tests is not a waste by any means, especially not for the games sections.

User avatar
risktaker
Posts: 687
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:10 pm

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Postby risktaker » Sat Jan 29, 2011 9:01 pm

Kabuo, it's because I was lucky enough to find out that I have never seen PT 42, 43, and 44. I have seen all the other PT's in the late 40s to the newest tests at least a couple times. I guess I will most likely use the older LG sections as experimentals on my remaining PT's. Just to keep me focused, here is my schedule for the next week leading up to the LSAT:

Tuesday: PT 42 w/ PT 22 LG
Thursday: PT 43 w/ PT 26 LG
Saturday: PT 44 w/ PT 27 LG
Tuesday: June 09 LSAT w/ PT 28 LG (I want to do at least one of the newer ones before the LSAT. I have already used the tests past June 09 to study for the Feb 11 LSAT, so that leaves me with no choice but to use June 09)
Wednesday: Just review mistakes from LSAT's taken and flash cards.
Thursday and Friday: Chill
Saturday: Kick ass!

Does this schedule sound decent guys? Any input would be appreciated. Thanks.

User avatar
Dotson525
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 9:40 pm

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Postby Dotson525 » Sat Jan 29, 2011 9:44 pm

risktaker wrote:Kabuo, it's because I was lucky enough to find out that I have never seen PT 42, 43, and 44. I have seen all the other PT's in the late 40s to the newest tests at least a couple times. I guess I will most likely use the older LG sections as experimentals on my remaining PT's. Just to keep me focused, here is my schedule for the next week leading up to the LSAT:

Tuesday: PT 42 w/ PT 22 LG
Thursday: PT 43 w/ PT 26 LG
Saturday: PT 44 w/ PT 27 LG
Tuesday: June 09 LSAT w/ PT 28 LG (I want to do at least one of the newer ones before the LSAT. I have already used the tests past June 09 to study for the Feb 11 LSAT, so that leaves me with no choice but to use June 09)
Wednesday: Just review mistakes from LSAT's taken and flash cards.
Thursday and Friday: Chill
Saturday: Kick ass!


Does this schedule sound decent guys? Any input would be appreciated. Thanks.


Looks pretty good. Was wondering a few things. Will you be working on Lsat material (notes, reviews...), in between PTs? The reviews will definitely help when you take the next PT. Taking PTs without extensive review will serve little purpose. Also, I noticed that your experimentals consist of LG. Is this your weakness? If so, you can use your older PT's and do a section of LG, on the days that you do not test. Keep in mind that your study schedule should fit you and your schedule. I'm currently not working so I spend about 8hrs a day (6 or a little less on weekend).

Other thoughts:
Before each PT think of a game plan for tackling your weak section. I noticed LG was listed frequently, so I'll use as an example.

Ex
If your missing 8 or more, focus on only 3 games. Complete the games that are easier first. Aim for accuracy among these 3 games.
This is just one example.

Found that these little things helped. Hope it works for you! :)

User avatar
vissidarte27
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 3:43 pm

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Postby vissidarte27 » Sat Jan 29, 2011 10:25 pm

Took the day off. A little burnout and a little more life drama and a PT today just didn't happen.

Back on the wagon tomorrow. I think I'm gonna review my last three tests tonight and try to figure out where my mistakes were and how to avoid making the same mistakes next time. I have a system for doing that for LR (I list the type of question, why my answer is wrong, why the correct answer is right, why I chose the answer I did -- ie didn't read all the answer choices thoroughly or missed a key word in the stimulus -- and how to fix the problem), but I really don't know how to go about attacking RC, which is where I'm making a decent number of mistakes these days.

Any ideas for a systematic attack of RC review?

User avatar
risktaker
Posts: 687
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:10 pm

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Postby risktaker » Sat Jan 29, 2011 11:40 pm

Thanks Dotson. I do review between test days and I am not working right now, so I can dedicate a decent amount of time to it. I will definitely do what you suggested though.

User avatar
Dotson525
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 9:40 pm

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Postby Dotson525 » Sun Jan 30, 2011 1:34 am

Two more weeks to go, and need to the nitty gritty. lol

Able to improve within RC and LG has always come to easy to me. (Always had problems with LR, never understood why though.) LR I've seen slight improvement, but more is needed.I was able to improve upon flaws and assumption. My incorrect answers consists within most strongly supported, and argument proceeds by.

Any and all advice is appreciated.

My schedule consists of:

Mon: PT55+ex LR (10 act.)
Tues: June 2007 (running out of PTs. lol have yet to take this one)+ ex LR
Wed:PT 57+ RC (next 10)
Thurs PT Dec. 2010 (took exam, printing and taking again)+ ex LG
Fri: PT 58+ ex LR
Sat: review and LR section from older PT
Sun: review and LR section from older PT
Mon: 59+ ex LR
Tues: review and LR/RC section from older PT
Wed: PT 60+ ex LR
Thurs: review and LR/RC or LG from older PT
Fri: review notes
Sat: test

I was thinking about including a 6th section on some PTs. I read that including one more section will increase stamina.

Hopefully this will tie up loose ends. Looking to gain 2-4 points in LR
Any suggestions?

User avatar
risktaker
Posts: 687
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:10 pm

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Postby risktaker » Sun Jan 30, 2011 1:53 am

I am scared of burn out otherwise I would do a PT everyday. I will try to do a 6th section on some of those tests.

User avatar
risktaker
Posts: 687
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:10 pm

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Postby risktaker » Sun Jan 30, 2011 3:35 am

Just decided that I will do PT 42 tomorrow. Reviewed PT 25 from today and realized that LR had some of the most ridiculous answers, which in today's tests would most likely be considered wrong answers. For example, one answer to a question was right even though the answer talked about "cost to society" and passage was only about "cost" in general. I know for a fact that an answer choice like this in the newer tests would be placed there as a shell game answer choice, which would be wrong. I have a strong feeling that I will kill tomorrow's PT 42 proving that PTs in the high 20s are a joke.

User avatar
suspicious android
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Postby suspicious android » Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:02 am

risktaker wrote:Just decided that I will do PT 42 tomorrow. Reviewed PT 25 from today and realized that LR had some of the most ridiculous answers, which in today's tests would most likely be considered wrong answers. For example, one answer to a question was right even though the answer talked about "cost to society" and passage was only about "cost" in general. I know for a fact that an answer choice like this in the newer tests would be placed there as a shell game answer choice, which would be wrong. I have a strong feeling that I will kill tomorrow's PT 42 proving that PTs in the high 20s are a joke.


I think you're being a little hasty. There is a lot of talk about newer tests being slightly different, which is true. But that's definitely not to say earlier tests were flawed. I can't think of any LR questions that are clearly flawed except the ones removed from scoring. The one you're referring to is #4 from the first LR section, right? That's a fine answer choice.

The argument's conclusion is that special ink should be used rather than microprinting. Microprinting requires the use of experts, while ink does not. That's definitely not a perfect argument because we don't really know all the relative merits of the two proposals. However, the question stem only asks you to support the argument, not make it perfect. Had the question stem asked for something that enabled the conclusion to be properly drawn, I'd agree that (A) is inadequate. But since it states that anything that requires the use of experts is significantly more costly to society, we have one reason in addition to the information in the stimulus to choose a method that doesn't require experts, i.e., special ink.

There are lots of questions that ask you to make similar, warranted leaps in logic to come to the correct answer choice. Many strengthen, weaken and inference questions use language to indicate that they're not necessarily looking for a rock-solid chain of reasoning. Relatively few ask for things that absolutely must be true, or make arguments 100% valid/invalid. That's true in the newer tests as well as the old ones.

User avatar
mr_toad
Posts: 669
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 9:08 am

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Postby mr_toad » Sun Jan 30, 2011 9:45 am

The question of whether older tests are useful should be broken up into two separate issues. I think a lot of people conflate "practicing" with "narrowing their range of expected score outcomes". Earlier tests, and by this I mean anything before 56 or even 57, are in my experience much easier and thus much less predictive of your score. Tests 57-61 are much more likely to be extremely similar in type and difficulty to the test in two weeks. That said, the older tests are perfectly good for practicing skills, endurance, etc. Just don't let a 180 in the 40s fool you into high expectations (I made this mistake). My average in October for 57-60 was about a 171.5, and I scored a 170 on the October test. Compare that with 45-56, where I averaged around a 176 and would often finish games 5-10 minutes early. I don't think any test since 57 has had a game section where I've finished more than 10 seconds before time (and often haven't finished). Just saying. It could just be me, but I remember other people saying similar things in the run-up to the October test.

User avatar
Dotson525
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 9:40 pm

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Postby Dotson525 » Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:14 pm

I haven't used of the 40's (have every other test, just didn't order), so I can't comment on their difficulty. However, for early PTs concerning LR, overall most stimuli are longer than new PTs. Also, they are heavily concentrated within flaws and assumptions. After mastering those questions, I was able to complete the newer PT LR section (flaw and assumption) with ease. As for the LG, from doing older PTs, I have yet to be completely stumped by a game.

Though I wondering should I at least get one PT from the 40's, to at least view its material.
Anyone have comments concerning LR within PT 40's?

User avatar
Kabuo
Posts: 1114
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:53 am

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Postby Kabuo » Sun Jan 30, 2011 5:20 pm

I'm not using a spreadsheet or anything this retake, but here's some anecdotal evidence about LR in the 40s. Throughout the 50s, I averaged -3 through both LR sections, with my last 5 tests or so being -1. I've gone through 40-47 so far during my retake studying, and I average about -3 per both sections. There is a lot more volatility in this average though. In the 50s, I'd usually miss 1 per section; in the 40s, I'll ace both sections about as frequently as going -3 in both. I doubt this is a 40s thing as much as it is my relatively more relaxed PTing, but it's possible that it's a 40s thing. I've noticed that almost all of my mistakes come on simple misreading of the stimuli (always, must, except, etc). This sort of reinforces my belief that it's just my approach to them and not the PTs themselves. Anyway, my opinion is that LR is not very different between the 40s and 50s. Games are significantly easier, and RC is hard to say because of the lack of comparative reading.

User avatar
risktaker
Posts: 687
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:10 pm

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Postby risktaker » Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:03 pm

Well, I am pretty sure I experienced burn out today. Got my lowest PT score of 159. So much for all my optimism. I have been having a lot of trouble finishing LR sections on time and blindly guessed on a combined 10 questions for LR today and got them all wrong. I need to find a way to improve my speed. I will take a few days off and take another PT on Thursday. After scoring 173 on Dec 09 test and getting a 159 today, I think I just need some time to rest and review more solidly before my next test.

SchopenhauerFTW
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:22 pm

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Postby SchopenhauerFTW » Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:05 pm

Haven't posted here in awhile. Finally reached the steady point of -1 for RC three days in a row. Gotta keep it up.

xyzzzzzzzz
Posts: 463
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:28 pm

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Postby xyzzzzzzzz » Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:26 pm

Starting to think I am going to take an absent for feb. I don't want to give up, but I don't think I can hit my target in 2 weeks. We'll see.

User avatar
mr_toad
Posts: 669
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 9:08 am

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Postby mr_toad » Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:39 pm

Hit 176 on 58 (spread out as experimentals on 4 tests), 173 on 57 as part of a full 5 section test on Saturday. Doing 59 with LG extra from 61 sometime around the weekend, latest next Wednesday. That's about it. Just light studying from here til then. I burned out in October, so I don't want to do that again. Good luck to everyone. This is my third and last time, just hoping to see what an additional 1-3 points might do for waitlists/scholarships in current cycle.

User avatar
mr_toad
Posts: 669
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 9:08 am

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Postby mr_toad » Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:04 pm

I'll summarize what I just wrote as a PM to someone else who asked for advice. Don't blindly follow the order of PTs up til test day. In fact, I'd almost recommend working backwards so that you have a longer exposure to the newest trends. My ideal list would be 61, 60, 57 (progressively difficult). Then hit 59 (still tough), and finally 56 and 58, which are, IMO, relatively easy compared to those other four I listed. Ideally, even, I would suggest just two of the first list and really working hard to develop strategies that allow you to conquer the games like on 57 and 60 or 61. LR/RC are pretty equivalent for anything post 52 or so, but LG is much different starting with 57, as I've posted before. Don't save it for too late: do it ASAP so you can start figuring out how to deal with games of that magnitude/complexity, etc. Just my 2 cents as a test-taker now doing it for the third time. the first two times I made the mistake of doing the newest tests too late and not having a chance to really figure them out, which crushed my confidence going in. And I was presented with game types that challenged me and were similar to those PTs; I just hadn't given myself the advance time needed to figure them out in a universally applicable way.

Miracle
Posts: 929
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 9:25 pm

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Postby Miracle » Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:12 pm

mr_toad wrote:I'll summarize what I just wrote as a PM to someone else who asked for advice. Don't blindly follow the order of PTs up til test day. In fact, I'd almost recommend working backwards so that you have a longer exposure to the newest trends. My ideal list would be 61, 60, 57 (progressively difficult). Then hit 59 (still tough), and finally 56 and 58, which are, IMO, relatively easy compared to those other four I listed. Ideally, even, I would suggest just two of the first list and really working hard to develop strategies that allow you to conquer the games like on 57 and 60 or 61. LR/RC are pretty equivalent for anything post 52 or so, but LG is much different starting with 57, as I've posted before. Don't save it for too late: do it ASAP so you can start figuring out how to deal with games of that magnitude/complexity, etc. Just my 2 cents as a test-taker now doing it for the third time. the first two times I made the mistake of doing the newest tests too late and not having a chance to really figure them out, which crushed my confidence going in. And I was presented with game types that challenged me and were similar to those PTs; I just hadn't given myself the advance time needed to figure them out in a universally applicable way.


+1

User avatar
Kabuo
Posts: 1114
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:53 am

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Postby Kabuo » Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:23 pm

Well, took PT 48 tonight and have mixed feelings about it. First, what a freaking brutal curve. -8? Seriously? I thought the June 2007 one was the only one that terrible. Anyway, I take my tests from Cambridge, so I had an early games section in there as experimental. I aced sections 1-4 (including experimental), then missed #s 5, 24, and 26 in the last LR section. I was way short on time compared to where I usually am for that last section, so maybe it was just fatigue? I don't know. Usually I improve as the test goes on with all of my stupid mistakes in the first 2 sections. Anyway, I thought I had my second 180 while grading it until I got to those last 3 and missed 2 of them. Major bummer. On the other hand, even with the brutal curve, -3 is a 177 still, which is tied for my 2nd highest PT I think. It's easily my 2nd highest raw score at least, so that's something good. This weekend went -4, -3, which means I think I'll be right about where I'm realistically hoping to be for test day. I just need to get a 175 to make this retake a really good idea, and to not dip below 172 to make it a not terrible idea, and I think I'll be in good shape to do that.

Plan for next weekend is to take PT 49 and 62 at the test center I'll be going to, ideally at 8 am for simulation's sake.

User avatar
mr_toad
Posts: 669
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 9:08 am

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Postby mr_toad » Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:19 am

Kabuo wrote:Well, took PT 48 tonight and have mixed feelings about it. First, what a freaking brutal curve. -8? Seriously? I thought the June 2007 one was the only one that terrible. Anyway, I take my tests from Cambridge, so I had an early games section in there as experimental. I aced sections 1-4 (including experimental), then missed #s 5, 24, and 26 in the last LR section. I was way short on time compared to where I usually am for that last section, so maybe it was just fatigue? I don't know. Usually I improve as the test goes on with all of my stupid mistakes in the first 2 sections. Anyway, I thought I had my second 180 while grading it until I got to those last 3 and missed 2 of them. Major bummer. On the other hand, even with the brutal curve, -3 is a 177 still, which is tied for my 2nd highest PT I think. It's easily my 2nd highest raw score at least, so that's something good. This weekend went -4, -3, which means I think I'll be right about where I'm realistically hoping to be for test day. I just need to get a 175 to make this retake a really good idea, and to not dip below 172 to make it a not terrible idea, and I think I'll be in good shape to do that.

Plan for next weekend is to take PT 49 and 62 at the test center I'll be going to, ideally at 8 am for simulation's sake.


Sorry to beat a dead horse, but if you want to know if you're at 175, don't be taking tests in the 40s. Take 62, by all means, and then one other between 57 and 61. At least.

Lasker
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:17 pm

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Postby Lasker » Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:50 am

Wooo! 180 on PT 60 tonight!

I still haven't mastered RC though; there are still always 1-3 questions that *seem* to me to be somewhat subjective. I'm going to try to go over all the 40s and 50s RC passages this week, before taking PTs 62 and 61 in that order before next Sat. Maybe that will help.

@Kabuo I agree that tests with lower curves feel harder. Give me a -14 test any day!

SKI
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 12:41 am

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Postby SKI » Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:25 am

I concur with mr_toad re: not drawing conclusions about one's performance from 40 series PTs. Regardless of that, "mixed feelings" about a 177? Someone please call the wambulance.

User avatar
8675309
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 6:59 pm

Re: The Slightly More Official February 2011 LSAT Thread

Postby 8675309 » Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:26 am

I'm feeling success!!!!!

Hindsight is so 20/20, I thought I had LR pretty good in the December test. Boy was I wrong. I am actually starting to feel confident on this section now and am thinking that this may start to go well. ANDDDD I still have 2 weeks. That seems like plenty of time!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], cctv, PrezRand and 4 guests