June 2011 Study Group Forum

[BlaqBella]

MickeyD has a great point. I wont say I haven't thought of contingencies in case I haven't progressed for June, but we have until Mid-May to make a decision on our test date. Stay at it people!

Great to here that improvement. On Feb 12 I went 153 and just last week hit 173. This test is more than beatable!! With that rate of change I'm hoping for a 183 test day

Congrats!

[Eichörnchen]

MickeyD has a great point. I wont say I haven't thought of contingencies in case I haven't progressed for June, but we have until Mid-May to make a decision on our test date. Stay at it people!

Great to here that improvement. On Feb 12 I went 153 and just last week hit 173. This test is more than beatable!! With that rate of change I'm hoping for a 183 test day

Haha that's awesome- that's my issue though. I know it's learnable, but I'm just afraid I can't learn it well enough by June I think that with enough time I could totally get to mid 170s, but I really don't know if I can make it happen by June. But I realllly don't want to have to retake haha.

I understand the need to try and shoot for June but ultimately you want to sit the exam when you are consistently scoring ABOVE your goal score.

Yea I'm aware. Thanks. That's kind of my point.

[tmon]

MickeyD has a great point. I wont say I haven't thought of contingencies in case I haven't progressed for June, but we have until Mid-May to make a decision on our test date. Stay at it people!

Great to here that improvement. On Feb 12 I went 153 and just last week hit 173. This test is more than beatable!! With that rate of change I'm hoping for a 183 test day

Haha that's awesome- that's my issue though. I know it's learnable, but I'm just afraid I can't learn it well enough by June I think that with enough time I could totally get to mid 170s, but I really don't know if I can make it happen by June. But I realllly don't want to have to retake haha.

I understand the need to try and shoot for June but ultimately you want to sit the exam when you are consistently scoring ABOVE your goal score.

All I'm saying is that now is not the time to get pessimistic. The next two weeks (more for those who continue on the June track) are a time to go full speed ahead and get in as much improvement as possible. I also think sometimes the difference from where we are and where we want to be seems like a long ways away, but small changes can make a huge difference. I attribute the last 5 or so points I've improved just to realizing I'm capable of getting every LR Q correct, and not panicking mid-section. I've read some great numbers put up by you guys, so we just have to keep at it at this point. Not trying to be unrealistic though

[Manhattan LSAT Noah]

If anyone is interested in attending the 4:30 Sunday meeting (in the MLSAT Self-Study Room), here are the questions they'll be reviewing then:

LR
PT33, S1, Q5
PT31, S3, Q14
PT32, S1, Q15
PT30, S4, Q21
LG
PT33, S4, G3

[tiniestdancer7]

pt 45 today! yay...not

[BlaqBella]

tmon , the race is not won by the swiftest. As one of my instructors stated, your goal to the finish line should be taken in baby steps. If you scored 168 on a PT, your next goal should be a 169, and so on and so forth. It is unrealistic to make big leaps ( 5-10 point jumps) with the little time that is left. I am not saying it's impossible, just highly unlikely. Nevertheless, good luck with your studies.

[Viper]

Can anyone explain PT 38, LR 1, Q9? (Resolve the Paradox)

The stimulus says what caused the extinction of the dinosaurs was a comet that could have thrown debris into the air leading to lack of sunlight leading to decreased food sources and low temperatures. The discrepancy is that the scientists have also established that the debris wouldn't have stayed in the air long enough to have had that effect.

Answer is E: That the dinosaurs were susceptible to respiratory diseases caused by the asteroid debris contaminated air.


To me it seemed like this AC would be in contradiction of that first part of the stimulus about HOW the comet led to the extinction.

Is it because the stimulus used the wording "COULD have hurled enough debris into the atmosphere to block the sunlight" meaning that this wasn't necessarily what happened? But in that case, wouldn't ANY alternative way of dying be correct (ie. answer choice D)?

Ideas?

The thoery is that the dinosaurs became extinct when the asteroid struck the earth. The scientists are saying that the asteroid impact COULD (possible but not necessary) hurl enough debris into the air and kill off the dinosaurs and vegetation with low temperatures. But it also establishes that the debris settled before the low temperatures could kill either the dinosaurs or vegetation.

Anything that would give another explanation other than low temperatures of why the dinosaurs went extinct would be your answer. D) only states that the asteroid impact would have only killed MANY (which does not include all) dinosaurs through impact and tidal waves. E) While not explicitly stated, can be inferred to have a global, fatal impact upon the dinosaurs, aka a different means for extinction.

[tiniestdancer7]

pt 45

raw score: 72
scaled: 159

i guess i'll take it at this point

[tmon]

tmon , the race is not won by the swiftest. As one of my instructors stated, your goal to the finish line should be taken in baby steps. If you scored 168 on a PT, your next goal should be a 169, and so on and so forth. It is unrealistic to make big leaps ( 5-10 point jumps) with the little time that is left. I am not saying it's impossible, just highly unlikely. Nevertheless, good luck with your studies.

Completely agree with you! I hope I didn't come across as encouraging people to depend on huge score increases. Different people improve in different ways and at varying rates, and no one should expect a large increase. My point is just that if I'm pessimistic about my chances and doubting myself while testing, I know that depresses my score. So even if I'm improving by a point here and there, I wont see that in my score unless my head is on straight and my focus is where it needs to be. This probably isn't the case for everyone, but for those that tend to panic mid-section, working on that can truly yield results.

[tiniestdancer7]

i've been told that pt 45 is much much easier than others. anyone know if this is true overall? cause if it is then

[tmon]

i've been told that pt 45 is much much easier than others. anyone know if this is true overall? cause if it is then

Haven't taken 45, but LSAT Blog has a great resource for comparing curves here:
http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/ls ... rsion.html

It helps me to put my raw score in the context of other tests. While it obviously wont reflect the difficulty of the test, you can see if you got a particularly easy curve. In some ways 45's curve does look forgiving, but the difference between tests is no more than a couple points on your scaled score.

[Ssushi]

Hey guys, I'm wondering how I should approach studying in this final month. I'm just beginning to study but my classes are over so i have nothing but free time until the test date. I've taken a few tests so far and i guess ive been going up.

Diagnostic July 2007: 165
Preptest 21: 166
Preptest 29: 167
Preptest 30: 169

I would like to be around 175 by test date i guess. I started working through the Logic Analysis Bible, but i realized on all 4 tests i never miss more than 3 or 4 on the LA so im thinking this is a waste of my time. My real problem is CR, where i miss between 6 and 10 and my Logic Games, which are really inconsistent. On my Diagnostic i only missed -1, whereas on pretest 30 i managed to miss 6.

I ordered the logic games bible so i will most likely work though that, but can anyone recommend anything for reading? Also do you guys honestly think i have enough time to get to 175?

[jim-green]

Soj, do you remember how many you got right on PT A's S1 LR.

I got -2. Got 14 and 25 wrong.

Soj, thanks, this is helpful!

[tiniestdancer7]

i've been told that pt 45 is much much easier than others. anyone know if this is true overall? cause if it is then

Haven't taken 45, but LSAT Blog has a great resource for comparing curves here:
http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/ls ... rsion.html

It helps me to put my raw score in the context of other tests. While it obviously wont reflect the difficulty of the test, you can see if you got a particularly easy curve. In some ways 45's curve does look forgiving, but the difference between tests is no more than a couple points on your scaled score.

ohh awesome! ps i love the lion king lol

[Manash]

Took PT 44 last night:
Sec 1 - RC - 24/27
Sec 2 - LR1 - 25/25
Sec 3 - RC - 25/27 - EXP
Sec 4 - LG - 22/22
Sec 5 - LR2 - 23/26

94pts = 174

Gave up 3 pts on this test, which would have given me a 178, but I'll take it. Test felt ok. I actually thought I did worse on Sec. 1 [RC] so I felt relieved escaping with a -3 in that section. The LG is finally coming into place and I've gone -0 in the past 3 or so PTs. If I can lock down a consistent -0 in LR and tweak up RC, there is no reason why I shouldn't hit 180 in the near future. Hoping for the best and will continue to practice. PT 47 tonight.

PT Score Spread:
01.(PT 34) 168, 02.(PT 35) 165, 03.(PT 36) 169, 04.(PT 37) 171, 05.(PT 39) 170,
06.(PT 42) 174, 07.(PT 45) 176, 08.(PT 44) 174,

A word of advise for those who are in the 150's:
Go over the bibles again and again. Sure, you have an idea of the method to this beast but you need to have a good idea to get into the 160's consistently. Practicing is not enough. You really need to be aware of the fundamentals of this test. I self studied, having started in the 140's, and I'm at the point that I can anticipate a question stem or even know what question type would be a great one to accompany the stimulus. Get into that groove and it's all about conditioning and practice from there.

Advise for those in the 160's:
You have a good idea of the test..you need to have a great idea of it to break into the 170's consistently. If you're in this group, conditioning and practice might be your main factor. Dealing with short time left on the clock and being composed to snag those few points might help you break the 160's but you need not have to resort to short time bubbling to get a mid 160 score at best. Lock down the method to each question type.. if I throw an argument at you.. you better be able to throw a strengthen, weaken, justify, or assumption question type right back.. really get into the frame of mind of simply being comfortable with each of the question types. Drill and practice this and you'll find yourself hunting for the right answer and seeing it there clear as day once you see the question type that accompanies the stimulus. This is just an alternative way of looking at the material. So much advise has being thrown about that at the end of the day the alternative methods might do the trick for some. I had to go that route because it didn't click for a long time.

Advise for 170's:
I have none. We're in the same boat. It's all about staying on point and putting it all together.

While I was able to improve drastically on RC through my own written method using the NY Times and drilling it, the Bibles were the source of breaking through on LR and LG.

All the best to all and sure, some might think I'm tooting my own horn [really not trying to], but I am very pleasantly surprised at the way this thread has turned out and I'm really glad I created it. I didn't see it getting this much traffic. I hope what we're all doing here will be duplicated for future cycles as it will help future takers immeasurably in being able to find support in tackling the test.

Later.

[soj]

Wow, congrats, that's really amazing! -0 on PT44 LR1 ... respect.

Let's kill it on test day!

[tmon]

While I was able to improve drastically on RC through my own written method using the NY Times and drilling it,

Very nice work Manash. Mind explaining what you method was with the NY Times? Or, if you mentioned in in a past page, just let me know...this thread's just so huge now. I've been thinking about adding some outside reading to my routine, partly because I might run out of current material, and partly because what I'm doing so far just isn't helping much. Do you just go through an article with an eye toward structure, tone, and consider individual paragraphs in that light? Any further insight on what you're doing there would be most appreciated.

[tiniestdancer7]

thanks so much for the info manash! hopefully i can break 160 one day soon...

[tmon]

Ok. More posting in the last couple days than the last months of viewing this forum. Redid 56 untimed (after timed yesterday) with expected results. Didn't change the -4 total on LR I missed (though this is huge improvement and I'm psyched) and my -7 RC ( ) went down to a -3. Breakdown:

PT56
LG -0
LR A -3
LR B -1
RC -7

-11/170

LG was the hardest section I've had in a very very long time...at least a month or so. I'm almost surprised I didn't drop 1 somewhere, but proud that I didn't. The first game had a really obvious way of determining options that I threw out because I thought it might take too much time...and that led to the whole game dragging me down. Glad I was able to fight through it.

I've said it enough in the last couple days, but I feel like I've made a huge step mentally on LR, so I'm hoping this kind of score is here to stay, rather than randomly missing 5 or 6 sometimes on just one section. If it weren't for the semi-epiphany I feel I had, I'd feel awfully flukey about the section, but I'll have to wait until more scores roll in before I'm sure what my expected range is. Feels good right now, though.

And then there was one. I'm so frustrated with RC. I've done whole sections timed and untimed, I've done chunks of sections timed and untimed. I've reviewed. I've gone through the Manhattan guide. I'm just really hung up on this. Still a month left to at least get it to a respectable level, but my inconsistency and problems here are killing me, and it's even clearer now. I can score a -4 at times, but not consistently. I knew this one was going to be rough. The first passage was fine, nothing wrong, missed 8, 10, and 11, and then 17, 19, 21 and 24. Maybe I'll start picking up the Economist or something. If I can get this anywhere under 5 consistently, I'll be in much better shape. I'd love a high 170s score, but honestly a 172/3 would be great for where I'm shooting. Anything beyond that is extra merit aid I suppose.

If anyone has suggestions on RC, by all means...I feel like I'm in a rut there. But overall...very happy with this improvement!


edit: Forgot that I did RC as an experimental. -3 on PT 31's RC. Inconsistency

[pkpop]

Facing the demons today.

Every time I practice RC I feel that way. Wish it was as engaging as LG

I know what you mean. It was really the LG from 62 that kinda threw me off for the rest of the test. I took 38 minutes this time, not rushing, and ended up with just a -1 overall on the section.... I can't believe it. It's seriously not like something you haven't seen before. Yea the games were a little tougher, but this section is something everyone in this thread should be able to do. I see where I went wrong on test day though, so all I can do is just learn from the mistakes and move on.

Lookin forward to working hard this next month.

[Darko86]

Got the MLSAT RC guide in today! Definitely looking forward to going over it after reading all of the glowing remarks concerning it in this thread.

Hope the prepping is going well for everyone.

[soj]

I swore out loud while doing PT25 LG. Minutes into the (already quite difficult) game, I realized I was diagramming both Xerxes and Zalamea as Z.

I can't be the only person who did this.

[Viper]

I swore out loud while doing PT25 LG. Minutes into the (already quite difficult) game, I realized I was diagramming both Xerxes and Zalamea as Z.

I can't be the only person who did this.

I screwed this game up because i didn't realize that each person could only speak 1 language. It cost me 1 question, but the game only took me 6-7 minutes. This game was pretty simple, 3 of the 6 people are already assigned to guides, with not that many possibilities for placing the last 3.

[tmon]

I swore out loud while doing PT25 LG. Minutes into the (already quite difficult) game, I realized I was diagramming both Xerxes and Zalamea as Z.

I can't be the only person who did this.

I've done that before on other games, always resulting in the same reaction....so frustrating.

In fact, if anyone's taking their test at Northwestern and happen to hear something like this, it's possibly me. That's really one of the only reasons I can imagine swearing out loud at the test. Just don't approach me afterwards, if that's the case...

[soj]

timed LG drills

PT25: -2
PT26: -0
PT27: -0
PT28: -0

Phew. No excuse for PT25, the two mistakes weren't even in the tourists game, which ended up taking ~13 minutes because I misdiagrammed. I would have missed many more questions if I didn't quickly figure out which Qs in that game I didn't have to redo. Obviously I need to avoid this kind of mistake, but it was good to have practiced dealing with an emergency situation. One of the wrong answers was in Game 1, and could have been prevented had I read the question correctly. The other one was in Game 4, and I simply failed to see an important possibility.

However, I got on a roll and finished PT26-28 with no error. PT27 is the infamous section with both the lizards/snakes game and the film buffs game, but I actually managed to get through the section with 5 minutes to spare thanks to having seen the buffs game before and knowing to set up the two possible distributions right away. (I did that the first time I saw the game, too, but not quite so quickly.)

Overall, I'm feeling very good. As long as I get no more than 14 wrong on RC, I will be able to pull out a 170+ on PT27. Hope I didn't just jinx myself there.

EDIT: Brought down my median LG score from -1 to -.5. -0 is not far away!