June 2011 Study Group

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

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby soj » Fri Apr 22, 2011 5:15 pm

PT45
LR1: -2
RC: -2
LGe (PT41): -1
LG: -0
LR2: -1
Raw: -5
Scaled: 177

I misread two Qs in LGe (both times read "minimum" as "maximum" :roll: ). I managed to catch my mistakes and fix one of them, but I ran out of time before I could fix the other one. If I had gone a little faster, I would have had time to save that one too.

I'm so proud of how I did on RC, considering it was one of the tougher RC sections I've seen. Surprisingly, Hippocratic Oath, which LSAT Blog considers one of the five hardest RC passages ever, was the easiest of the four--I had much more trouble with the other three. Natural disaster response was surprisingly dense (and the questions were so LONG and tricky), lichen was boring and its questions kept trying to trip me up on small details (I had trouble distinguishing between lichen, fungi, DNA, algae, and all those biological terms), and aboriginal rights ... well, that was definitely the hardest, though I tried my best and thought I was able to reason my way (rather than being forced to guess) through all of the Qs. Although the only Qs I ultimately marked as unsure were in the natural disaster passage, the 2 Qs I got wrong were in aboriginal rights. I can't be too mad at myself for getting those wrong because I actually considered those Qs for a long time and chose other ACs for what I thought were good reasons. They weren't silly mistakes; I flat-out got outsmarted on those Qs, so I just gotta go over them and see what went wrong.

But LR! What a huge difference from yesterday, when -7 over three LR sections actually felt like -15. Overall I felt more confident in each answer, and there were more of those encouraging moments when I felt like I'd outsmarted LSAC by being able to eliminate particularly tempting ACs. Even the ones I felt unsure about I got right. The three Qs I got wrong came as complete surprises, but hey, you can't win 'em all.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the PTs I tend to do the best on are the ones with LG experimentals.

More stuff:
- I had to take extra breaks today. After the second section for biological reasons (sorry, TMI), and after the fourth section because of some urgent part-time job-related stuff. Lesson for the future--get rid of all possible distractions :roll: before taking a PT.
- I'm going to take a break from prep on this high note. I'll be back on Sunday to take on the rest of the Deconstructeds.

EDIT: Top of Page 80! Maybe that's a sign. 180 180 180 180 :roll:
EDIT2: With this, I brought my mode RC score down from -3 to -2. :lol: Median is still -3, though, and mean is -3.13.
Last edited by soj on Fri Apr 22, 2011 6:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

tagast
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby tagast » Fri Apr 22, 2011 5:24 pm

^^
That's weird...

boooooo inconsistency....


PT45
LR1: -3
RC: -4 (improvement!)
LG: -0
LR2: -8 ( :shock: )
Exp RC28: -3 (woot!)

-15/+84=167


TWO not-awful RC scores! Had I not somehow totally ruined myself on LR2 this probably would've been my best test yet. I'm so close to getting my first 170...and boy do I want it. 87 for a 170 on this curve though... seems lenient, so I should probably worry more about the raw of 84.

I just don't understand how I go -3 on LR1 then -8 on the second. Maybe it's stamina and I'm not realizing it. It didn't feel like I was worn out by then...the section just didn't seem to flow like usual; I wasn't seeing the inferences and right answers weren't jumping off the page as they were in LR1. It's generally accepted that two LR sections on a test wont be THAT different in difficulty, right?

Oh well...review time!

tagast
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby tagast » Fri Apr 22, 2011 5:28 pm

soj wrote:PT45
LR1: -2
RC: -2
LGe (PT41): -1
LG: -0
LR2: -1
Raw: -5
Scaled: 177

I misread two Qs in LGe (both times read "minimum" as "maximum" :roll: ). I managed to catch my mistakes and fix one of them, but I ran out of time before I could fix the other one. If I had gone a little faster, I would have had time to save that one too.

I'm so proud of how I did on RC, considering it was one of the tougher RC sections I've seen. Surprisingly, Hippocratic Oath, which LSAT Blog considers one of the five hardest RC passages ever, was the easiest of the four--I had much more trouble with the other three. Natural disaster response was surprisingly dense (and the questions were so LONG and tricky), lichen was boring and its questions kept trying to trip me up on small details (I had trouble distinguishing between lichen, fungi, DNA, algae, and all those biological terms), and aboriginal rights ... well, that was definitely the hardest, though I tried my best and thought I was able to reason my way (rather than being forced to guess) through all of the Qs. Although the only Qs I ultimately marked as unsure were in the natural disaster passage, the 2 Qs I got wrong were in aboriginal rights. I can't be too mad at myself for getting those wrong because I actually considered those Qs for a long time and chose other ACs for what I thought were good reasons. They weren't silly mistakes; I flat-out got outsmarted on those Qs, so I just gotta go over them and see what went wrong.

But LR! What a huge difference from yesterday, when -7 over three LR sections actually felt like -15. Overall I felt more confident in each answer, and there were more of those encouraging moments when I felt like I'd outsmarted LSAC by being able to eliminate particularly tempting ACs. Even the ones I felt unsure about I got right. The three Qs I got wrong came as complete surprises, but hey, you can't win 'em all.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the PTs I tend to do the best on are the ones with LG experimentals.

More stuff:
- I had to take extra breaks today. After the second section for biological reasons (sorry, TMI), and after the fourth section because of some urgent part-time job-related stuff. Lesson for the future--get rid of all possible distractions :roll: before taking a PT.
- I'm going to take a break from prep on this high note. I'll be back on Sunday to take on the rest of the Deconstructeds.

EDIT: Top of Page 80! Maybe that's a sign. 180 180 180 180 :roll:



Definitely agree on RC. 2 misses were at the end of natural disasters, the other two in the aboriginal rights passage. I didn't know the reputation of this section coming in though..maybe that's a good thing.

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

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby jim-green » Fri Apr 22, 2011 5:34 pm

tagast wrote:
soj wrote:PT45
I'm so proud of how I did on RC, considering it was one of the tougher RC sections I've seen. Surprisingly, Hippocratic Oath, which LSAT Blog considers one of the five hardest RC passages ever, was the easiest of the four--I had much more trouble with the other three.
Definitely agree on RC. 2 misses were at the end of natural disasters, the other two in the aboriginal rights passage. I didn't know the reputation of this section coming in though..maybe that's a good thing.
Interesting, I found lichens to be the hardest passage.

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

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby jim-green » Fri Apr 22, 2011 5:35 pm

Has anyone done the PT47 games yet, and do you have any insights on what the diagram should be for the last game: Maggie's Deli? Any good inferences?

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

PT48 S4 #6 LR

Postby jim-green » Fri Apr 22, 2011 5:40 pm

Anyone done the PT48 S4 #6 LR most supported question yet? I chose C (no longer have an advantage), and still cannot comprehend why it is incorrect. I can understand why A (reduce costs) is correct, but not why C is wrong. Any ideas?

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

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby jim-green » Fri Apr 22, 2011 5:42 pm

geverett wrote:Anybody done PT 29 Logic games? They were some of the harder ones I can remember doing.
Games 1 and 3 were easy. Games 2 (mannequins) and 4 (piano classes with Holly and Pedro) were tough. Game 2 does not have much of a diagram, but Game 4 lends itself to a good diagram that can be used efficiently.

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

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby Eichörnchen » Fri Apr 22, 2011 5:49 pm

jim-green wrote:
geverett wrote:Anybody done PT 29 Logic games? They were some of the harder ones I can remember doing.
Games 1 and 3 were easy. Games 2 (mannequins) and 4 (piano classes with Holly and Pedro) were tough. Game 2 does not have much of a diagram, but Game 4 lends itself to a good diagram that can be used efficiently.

Yea I went -7 on this one cause I did them out of order and spent way too long on mannequins (and still got two wrong in it!) and I ran out of time just after diagramming game one and feeling like, "oh yea I got this one". Ended up having to guess on all of it instead :roll:

User avatar
mickeyD
Posts: 357
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 12:43 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby mickeyD » Fri Apr 22, 2011 6:11 pm

So I just haven't gone to a single one of my Testmasters classes since I went to both sessions the first week of this month. It's just pointless being in there, we spend 4 hours going over a total of like 6 LR questions.

Only positives are the books, which group pretty much every LSAT question ever, and have lots of drills and exercises as well. The online resource center is pretty great too, video explanations for all the LGs, written LR explanations, downloadable diagnostics. Guess I basically paid $1500 for some books and videos.. :roll:

In any case, blasting through like 400 LR Q's over the past few weeks using the TM books bumped my LR from around -10 to around -6, so it may be worth it in the end.

tagast
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby tagast » Fri Apr 22, 2011 6:42 pm

Oh jeez.

I just spent 15 minutes on one of the LR I got wrong, trying to convince myself what I answered wasn't right...turns out it was a misprint.

face-->palm



On the bright side -14=168! haha!

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

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby 99.9luft » Fri Apr 22, 2011 7:03 pm

soj wrote:PT45
LR1: -2
RC: -2
LGe (PT41): -1
LG: -0
LR2: -1
Raw: -5
Scaled: 177

I misread two Qs in LGe (both times read "minimum" as "maximum" :roll: ). I managed to catch my mistakes and fix one of them, but I ran out of time before I could fix the other one. If I had gone a little faster, I would have had time to save that one too.

I'm so proud of how I did on RC, considering it was one of the tougher RC sections I've seen. Surprisingly, Hippocratic Oath, which LSAT Blog considers one of the five hardest RC passages ever, was the easiest of the four--I had much more trouble with the other three. Natural disaster response was surprisingly dense (and the questions were so LONG and tricky), lichen was boring and its questions kept trying to trip me up on small details (I had trouble distinguishing between lichen, fungi, DNA, algae, and all those biological terms), and aboriginal rights ... well, that was definitely the hardest, though I tried my best and thought I was able to reason my way (rather than being forced to guess) through all of the Qs. Although the only Qs I ultimately marked as unsure were in the natural disaster passage, the 2 Qs I got wrong were in aboriginal rights. I can't be too mad at myself for getting those wrong because I actually considered those Qs for a long time and chose other ACs for what I thought were good reasons. They weren't silly mistakes; I flat-out got outsmarted on those Qs, so I just gotta go over them and see what went wrong.

But LR! What a huge difference from yesterday, when -7 over three LR sections actually felt like -15. Overall I felt more confident in each answer, and there were more of those encouraging moments when I felt like I'd outsmarted LSAC by being able to eliminate particularly tempting ACs. Even the ones I felt unsure about I got right. The three Qs I got wrong came as complete surprises, but hey, you can't win 'em all.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the PTs I tend to do the best on are the ones with LG experimentals.

More stuff:
- I had to take extra breaks today. After the second section for biological reasons (sorry, TMI), and after the fourth section because of some urgent part-time job-related stuff. Lesson for the future--get rid of all possible distractions :roll: before taking a PT.
- I'm going to take a break from prep on this high note. I'll be back on Sunday to take on the rest of the Deconstructeds.

EDIT: Top of Page 80! Maybe that's a sign. 180 180 180 180 :roll:
EDIT2: With this, I brought my mode RC score down from -3 to -2. :lol: Median is still -3, though, and mean is -3.13.


raw -5 = shwing! 8)

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

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby Eichörnchen » Fri Apr 22, 2011 9:25 pm

Quick question- I'm reviewing a game (pt24g4) and I think I've confused myself with the way I represented "F must be played immediately after R, unless G is played earlier than R". How would you guys diagram that?

User avatar
mickeyD
Posts: 357
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 12:43 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby mickeyD » Fri Apr 22, 2011 9:39 pm

This is it as it's written:

~(RF) ---> G > R

Take the contrapositive:

R > G ---> RF

Combine:

R > G ---> RF > G

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

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby Eichörnchen » Fri Apr 22, 2011 9:53 pm

mickeyD wrote:This is it as it's written:

~(RF) ---> G > R

Take the contrapositive:

R > G ---> RF

Combine:

R > G ---> RF > G

Ooooh now that looks much better. Well mistake #1 was that I flipped the first part (I guess it's time to review that unless equation :oops: ) and mistake #2 is that I'm a dummy and don't think for a contrapositive of G>R, it would be R>G, not G>R with a slash through it. Yeesh what a dumb way to represent that. See, that's the kind of crap I do in LG. My brain's very inflexible I guess haha. Thanks a bunch!

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

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby soj » Fri Apr 22, 2011 10:00 pm

Whenever I see "unless," I IFNEG the other clause. You can also IFNEG the unless clause (just don't do both), but this will usually lead to uglies like double negatives.

Not A unless B.
IFNEG(Not A), B.
If A, B.
A -> B

Gets tough and annoying when the unless statement is really complicated!
Last edited by soj on Fri Apr 22, 2011 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby Eichörnchen » Fri Apr 22, 2011 10:09 pm

soj wrote:Whenever I see "unless," I IFNEG the other clause. You can also IFNEG the unless clause (just don't do both), but this will usually lead to uglies like double negatives.

Not A unless B.
A -> B

Gets tough and annoying when the unless statement is really complicated!

Yea I think I should make myself a little drill of unless equations or something. I'm fine with them in LR, but that's because they are all words and in a real structure of sentences I think. My brain <3 words. They get along. But the game rules can feel more like equations so I'm more prone to screwing up.

Also, the biggest "aha!" for me in mickeys explanation was the contrapositive of G>R. It just boggles my mind that I wrote it w/the slash instead of just flipping it to R>G. Duhhh. I'm so glad I asked how someone else would write that. That baby is now on a sticky note over my desk. :)

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

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby soj » Fri Apr 22, 2011 10:11 pm

Yep!

This is assuming there can be no ties. If there is the possibility of ties, then the negation of A-B is B-A OR B=A. And it gets complicated. :(

User avatar
mickeyD
Posts: 357
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 12:43 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby mickeyD » Fri Apr 22, 2011 10:25 pm

Eich, that line of thinking also applies to those "two value systems" in the LGB, where every variable has to be in one group or another.

Example:

All students go to either Harvard or Yale.
If Eich goes to Harvard, then Soj goes to Yale.

Of course you do your basic conditional diagram:

Eich(H) ---> Soj(Y)

But the contrapositive is extremely important as well:

not(Soj(Y)) ---> not(Eich(H))

=

Soj(H) ---> Eich(Y)

So you basically get two conditionals from one rule.

User avatar
dr123
Posts: 3503
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 2:38 am

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby dr123 » Fri Apr 22, 2011 10:28 pm

So I'm going on a much needed vacation this weekend, the question is do I bring a pt with me or not?

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

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby Eichörnchen » Fri Apr 22, 2011 11:04 pm

soj wrote:Yep!

This is assuming there can be no ties. If there is the possibility of ties, then the negation of A-B is B-A OR B=A. And it gets complicated. :(

Oh ew. I didn't think about that :|

User avatar
coldshoulder
Posts: 963
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 4:05 pm

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby coldshoulder » Fri Apr 22, 2011 11:20 pm

dr123 wrote:So I'm going on a much needed vacation this weekend, the question is do I bring a pt with me or not?

For how long? If just the weekend, don't bring one and just let your brain relax for a couple days.

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

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby pkpop » Fri Apr 22, 2011 11:41 pm

mickeyD wrote:Eich, that line of thinking also applies to those "two value systems" in the LGB, where every variable has to be in one group or another.

Example:

All students go to either Harvard or Yale.
If Eich goes to Harvard, then Soj goes to Yale.

Of course you do your basic conditional diagram:

Eich(H) ---> Soj(Y)

But the contrapositive is extremely important as well:

not(Soj(Y)) ---> not(Eich(H))

=

Soj(H) ---> Eich(Y)

So you basically get two conditionals from one rule.


The "Doctor clinics" game comes to mind when you mention this. (PT 34.4) Try that one for more practice on those "either or" type questions/inferences.

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

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby soj » Fri Apr 22, 2011 11:47 pm

pkpop wrote:The "Doctor clinics" game comes to mind when you mention this. (PT 34.4) Try that one for more practice on those "either or" type questions/inferences.

That game is nasty! There's a particular inference that's extremely counterintuitive. Thankfully the questions don't test that inference, but its unusualness can still trip you up. :?

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

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby Eichörnchen » Sat Apr 23, 2011 12:04 am

mickeyD wrote:Eich, that line of thinking also applies to those "two value systems" in the LGB, where every variable has to be in one group or another.

Example:

All students go to either Harvard or Yale.
If Eich goes to Harvard, then Soj goes to Yale.

Of course you do your basic conditional diagram:

Eich(H) ---> Soj(Y)

But the contrapositive is extremely important as well:

not(Soj(Y)) ---> not(Eich(H))

=

Soj(H) ---> Eich(Y)

So you basically get two conditionals from one rule.

Good explanation. Happily I'm generally good with this idea cause I went over it thoroughly twice in the bible. (knock on wood that I don't start to have problems with it now haha). And btw- I'm very OK with the scenario you outline even if it means Soj and I aren't schoolmates haha

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

Re: June 2011 Study Group

Postby FloridaCoastalorbust » Sat Apr 23, 2011 1:45 am

The mannequins game was a biatch on PT29 - Q10 and Q12 were extreme time suckers and the conventional 'elimination' approach, while effective, just ate way too much time up. Are there any key deductions that made these two questions jump out at anyone? Or is this a plug and chug




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], jagerbom79, Lahtso Nuggin and 4 guests