June 2011 Study Group

User avatar
soj
Posts: 7735
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:10 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby soj » Sun Apr 03, 2011 1:50 pm

@Eichörnchen: Yeah, with a bubble sheet. One way it didn't resemble test conditions was that I wasn't blind to which section was experimental, but I think I exerted as much effort on the experimental as on the other sections, even if the result doesn't seem that way. I knew I was going to use sections in PT29 as experimentals in other exams and then use the combined raw scores to get a composite score, so it's not like I believed I was off the hook.

Good luck, geverett. I just had two RCs in a row, too.

PT32
-2 LR1
-4 RC experimental (PT29 S2)
-4 RC
-1 LG
-1 LR2
-8 Raw
175 Scaled

1. Already -9 in PT29 with two sections to go. :roll:

2. 3/6 on the multicultural passage? I know it's widely considered a difficult passage, but sheesh.

3. Epic fail in LR1: One of the two questions I got wrong is a question I've encountered before either in the Bible or in Manhattan and got right the first time.

Epic fail in LR2: I completely glossed over the word EXCEPT in Q15. Somehow I managed to confidently eliminate four ACs. :roll: Needless to say, the one I picked was not TCR.

4. I got all the LR questions I felt unsure about correct. I got all the RC questions I felt unsure about (and more) wrong. I guess I can't always get lucky.

User avatar
geverett
Posts: 285
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby geverett » Sun Apr 03, 2011 1:55 pm

Is the group meeting in the room to go over PT 47 today? I am in the room right now, and nobody else is in there.
Last edited by geverett on Sun Apr 03, 2011 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
geverett
Posts: 285
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby geverett » Sun Apr 03, 2011 2:05 pm

Man I had a terrible LG section:

LR 1 24/26
RC 22/26
LR 2 24/26
LG 18/22

My mistakes in LG were so stupid it was ridiculous. I should have had 170 easily on this test. Oh me oh my

Raw 88 Scaled 168

User avatar
chrisnyoder
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 10:38 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby chrisnyoder » Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:37 pm

Hey guys,

Just got done taking PT 32, which I'm relatively happy about (169) except for LR (-9 :( )

I went back to each question and figured out why each correct answer was indeed the correct answer. Except for one.

For some reason I can't seem to wrap my head around question 20 in section 4.

One of those "point at issue" type questions where it ask me to pick the sentence the two speakers might disagree on. The correct answer is B, but it seems to me that both speakers would disagree with this statement (hence, making them in agreeance with one another). It seems like the right answer should be flipped e.g. "All educational methods should adapt to child's accustomed style of learning."

Thoughts?

User avatar
Eichörnchen
Posts: 1119
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:51 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby Eichörnchen » Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:38 pm

geverett wrote:Man I had a terrible LG section:

LR 1 24/26
RC 22/26
LR 2 24/26
LG 18/22

My mistakes in LG were so stupid it was ridiculous. I should have had 170 easily on this test. Oh me oh my

Raw 88 Scaled 168

Good job on that 168 Gev! And I guess it's all relative - I'd be like "Booo-Yahhh!" if I went -4 on LG haha :oops:

User avatar
soj
Posts: 7735
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:10 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby soj » Sun Apr 03, 2011 4:27 pm

chrisnyoder wrote:Hey guys,

Just got done taking PT 32, which I'm relatively happy about (169) except for LR (-9 :( )

I went back to each question and figured out why each correct answer was indeed the correct answer. Except for one.

For some reason I can't seem to wrap my head around question 20 in section 4.

One of those "point at issue" type questions where it ask me to pick the sentence the two speakers might disagree on. The correct answer is B, but it seems to me that both speakers would disagree with this statement (hence, making them in agreeance with one another). It seems like the right answer should be flipped e.g. "All educational methods should adapt to child's accustomed style of learning."

Thoughts?

I think Pat would agree that all children should learn to adapt to various educational methods. In particular, he believes children should adapt to methods that emphasize individual learning as well as methods that emphasize group learning, as he believes being able to do both is in demand.
Last edited by soj on Sun Apr 03, 2011 4:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
geverett
Posts: 285
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby geverett » Sun Apr 03, 2011 4:35 pm

chrisnyoder wrote:Hey guys,

Just got done taking PT 32, which I'm relatively happy about (169) except for LR (-9 :( )

I went back to each question and figured out why each correct answer was indeed the correct answer. Except for one.

For some reason I can't seem to wrap my head around question 20 in section 4.

One of those "point at issue" type questions where it ask me to pick the sentence the two speakers might disagree on. The correct answer is B, but it seems to me that both speakers would disagree with this statement (hence, making them in agreeance with one another). It seems like the right answer should be flipped e.g. "All educational methods should adapt to child's accustomed style of learning."

Thoughts?


just finished typing out an extended reply to this, but lost it somehow. Hate it when that happens.

User avatar
chrisnyoder
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 10:38 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby chrisnyoder » Sun Apr 03, 2011 4:39 pm

soj wrote:
chrisnyoder wrote:Hey guys,

Just got done taking PT 32, which I'm relatively happy about (169) except for LR (-9 :( )

I went back to each question and figured out why each correct answer was indeed the correct answer. Except for one.

For some reason I can't seem to wrap my head around question 20 in section 4.

One of those "point at issue" type questions where it ask me to pick the sentence the two speakers might disagree on. The correct answer is B, but it seems to me that both speakers would disagree with this statement (hence, making them in agreeance with one another). It seems like the right answer should be flipped e.g. "All educational methods should adapt to child's accustomed style of learning."

Thoughts?

I think Pat would agree that all children should learn to adopt to various educational methods. In particular, he believes children should adopt to methods that emphasize individual learning as well as methods that emphasize group learning, as he believes being able to do both is in demand.


This is the interpretation that I'm forced to settle with, but I am by no means happy about it. In saying "no, not always" (in other words, a child's accustomed style of learning should NOT always dictate what method is used), Pat implies that tailoring teaching to a child's accustomed style of learning might SOMTIMES be a good idea. This would in turn lead me to believe that he would NOT agree that ALL children should learn to adapt to various educational methods (in other words, it should be the teaching that meets the demands of the child).

User avatar
geverett
Posts: 285
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby geverett » Sun Apr 03, 2011 4:56 pm

He says "no not always." in regards the fact that education type should not always follow the child's learning preference. But he is unequivocal when he states in the next sentence that flexibility is "invaluable", "indispensable", etc. This is the crux of the disagreement as we know Dana disagrees with this.

User avatar
soj
Posts: 7735
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:10 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby soj » Sun Apr 03, 2011 4:58 pm

chrisnyoder wrote:This is the interpretation that I'm forced to settle with, but I am by no means happy about it. In saying "no, not always" (in other words, a child's accustomed style of learning should NOT always dictate what method is used), Pat implies that tailoring teaching to a child's accustomed style of learning might SOMTIMES be a good idea. This would in turn lead me to believe that he would NOT agree that ALL children should learn to adapt to various educational methods (in other words, it should be the teaching that meets the demands of the child).

You have a point there. One way of reading it is this: When Pat negates Dana's statement, he means that a child's usual learning style should not always be used because the child needs to deal with different learning styles. In other words, sometimes a child will get to learn in his preferred style (e.g. alone), but other times he will have to learn in a different style (e.g. in groups). It depends on how you apply the negation.

By the way, "not always" doesn't always :roll: mean "sometimes." Sometimes :roll: "not always" can mean "never."

Kurst
Posts: 448
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:33 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby Kurst » Sun Apr 03, 2011 5:00 pm

chrisnyoder wrote:In saying "no, not always" (in other words, a child's accustomed style of learning should NOT always dictate what method is used), Pat implies that tailoring teaching to a child's accustomed style of learning might SOMTIMES be a good idea.

"It is not always the case" does not imply that "it is sometimes the case." Not always leaves open the possibility, nothing more.

User avatar
geverett
Posts: 285
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby geverett » Sun Apr 03, 2011 5:03 pm

What soj said. Don't rule out the possibility of sometimes meaning 1/100 instances or 100/100 instances. It is an intentionally ambiguous term. Same goes for not always as it could also be taken to the extreme to mean "never." Also all 4 of the other answer choices suck so this one "lends the most supports what they disagree about"

User avatar
geverett
Posts: 285
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby geverett » Sun Apr 03, 2011 5:10 pm

PT 47 Section 1 #24 is very interesting.

User avatar
geverett
Posts: 285
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby geverett » Sun Apr 03, 2011 5:12 pm

If anybody did PT 47 and wants to schedule a time to go over it just let me know.

jim-green
Posts: 808
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:55 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby jim-green » Sun Apr 03, 2011 5:16 pm

soj wrote:175 Scaled
Soj, are you doing these PTs as redos or as new PTs?

User avatar
soj
Posts: 7735
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:10 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby soj » Sun Apr 03, 2011 5:22 pm

jim-green wrote:
soj wrote:175 Scaled
Soj, are you doing these PTs as redos or as new PTs?

New. It's my 24th PT, 4th under testing conditions. I'm hoping to do all but five of them by D-14, and then use those two weeks to review/redo old PTs and do the last five PTs.

User avatar
geverett
Posts: 285
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby geverett » Sun Apr 03, 2011 5:24 pm

Mis-diagrammed a rule and it cost me the 170 on today's PT.

jim-green
Posts: 808
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:55 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby jim-green » Sun Apr 03, 2011 5:29 pm

Are we meeting at 8 pm for PT 36, Game 3?

jim-green
Posts: 808
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:55 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby jim-green » Sun Apr 03, 2011 5:30 pm

soj wrote:
jim-green wrote:
soj wrote:175 Scaled
Soj, are you doing these PTs as redos or as new PTs?

New. It's my 24th PT, 4th under testing conditions. I'm hoping to do all but five of them by D-14, and then use those two weeks to review/redo old PTs and do the last five PTs.

Congratulations, I hope to be inspired by you.

User avatar
chrisnyoder
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 10:38 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby chrisnyoder » Sun Apr 03, 2011 5:31 pm

geverett wrote:He says "no not always." in regards the fact that education type should not always follow the child's learning preference. But he is unequivocal when he states in the next sentence that flexibility is "invaluable", "indispensable", etc. This is the crux of the disagreement as we know Dana disagrees with this.
soj wrote:
chrisnyoder wrote:This is the interpretation that I'm forced to settle with, but I am by no means happy about it. In saying "no, not always" (in other words, a child's accustomed style of learning should NOT always dictate what method is used), Pat implies that tailoring teaching to a child's accustomed style of learning might SOMTIMES be a good idea. This would in turn lead me to believe that he would NOT agree that ALL children should learn to adapt to various educational methods (in other words, it should be the teaching that meets the demands of the child).

You have a point there. One way of reading it is this: When Pat negates Dana's statement, he means that a child's usual learning style should not always be used because the child needs to deal with different learning styles. In other words, sometimes a child will get to learn in his preferred style (e.g. alone), but other times he will have to learn in a different style (e.g. in groups). It depends on how you apply the negation.

By the way, "not always" doesn't always :roll: mean "sometimes." Sometimes :roll: "not always" can mean "never."


I guess that is where I went wrong. I immediately dismissed it as a contender because I assumed Pat "somtimes" believed teaching methods should be tailored toward the children, which in lead to me to guess among five bad answers.

And yeah, negating the sentence as to mean "not all teaching methods for a single child " works better than negating like "no, not all children."

geverett wrote:He says "no not always." in regards the fact that education type should not always follow the child's learning preference. But he is unequivocal when he states in the next sentence that flexibility is "invaluable", "indispensable", etc. This is the crux of the disagreement as we know Dana disagrees with this.


I wish I could just step back from the question and look at it more hollistically :roll:. If he says "invaluable" I would imagine that he means "all children"

geverett wrote:PT 47 Section 1 #24 is very interesting.


Definitely an interesting question, but to me it comes down to a matter of economics. Why make people go through the hassle of going through two steps (i.e. Manual + Assembly) when most people get along fine with the just one (i.e. Assembly)?

The consumer advocate is suggesting dependency on a manual, which is stupid if people get along fine without it.

My two pennies.

amols
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 2:51 am

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby amols » Sun Apr 03, 2011 5:37 pm

jim-green wrote:Are we meeting at 8 pm for PT 36, Game 3?


Yes. And LR.

User avatar
pkpop
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:09 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby pkpop » Sun Apr 03, 2011 5:39 pm

jim-green wrote:Are we meeting at 8 pm for PT 36, Game 3?


Yes, I'm pretty sure we're meeting tonight. I didn't keep mod status after I signed out on Sunday, but even if JG isn't there, we can still work through it.

geverett wrote:Is the group meeting in the room to go over PT 47 today? I am in the room right now, and nobody else is in there.


Yea man sorry I couldn't make it this afternoon. The last couple weeks I have been not at my place by 1pm. I should be good from now on though.

I'll be in the room tonight from 6 EST until late working on some questions I got wrong and other drills.

User avatar
99.9luft
Posts: 1244
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:32 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby 99.9luft » Sun Apr 03, 2011 7:00 pm

IT HAS BEGUN.

Did my first PT today after re-starting my studies in Feb (revised methodology thanks to the MLSAT guides).

PT 38

LR: -2 :)
LG: -3 :evil:
RC: -4 :evil:
LR: -2 :)

-11. Raw of 89, which is a 171. Not bad, considering I missed 20 on this PT last May. Did run out of time on LG and RC, but considering that i'll be PTing every other day, I'll get better at time management. Also, glad my LR time management + accuracy is showing signs of improvement.

amols
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 2:51 am

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby amols » Sun Apr 03, 2011 7:54 pm

Hey, everyone!

Come to the room. We're going to get started soon!

FloridaCoastalorbust
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 4:43 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby FloridaCoastalorbust » Sun Apr 03, 2011 8:27 pm

99.9luft wrote:IT HAS BEGUN.

Did my first PT today after re-starting my studies in Feb (revised methodology thanks to the MLSAT guides).

PT 38

LR: -2 :)
LG: -3 :evil:
RC: -4 :evil:
LR: -2 :)

-11. Raw of 89, which is a 171. Not bad, considering I missed 20 on this PT last May. Did run out of time on LG and RC, but considering that i'll be PTing every other day, I'll get better at time management. Also, glad my LR time management + accuracy is showing signs of improvement.


Good job, an excellent way to get some momentum towards June. Care to share tidbits of your 'revised methodology?'




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests