Near the end of my prep, about 25% of the answers I got wrong were from misbubbling. I guess some people are just naturally talented

Haha, awesome. Makes me feel like shit for not doing anything today.

PT35:
LR: -8 LR: -8 LG: -13 - RC: -8
154

...I don't know what happened. I really need to focus more... I dropped from my previous PT 34:
LR: -5 LR: -8 LG: -11 RC: -2
161

The inconsistency is killing me. At least my LR score is somewhat similar--albeit really crappy ALL the time. Does anyone have any tips on improving LG, especially if LG bible was already read? Do you go by types, or do you just go through each game for every completed PT? LR is actually very annoying too. Everytime I go back to the correct answers, its usually questions that I narrowed down to two choices, misread, or so simple that I don't know how I didn't chose the correct answer the first time. I think I need to start becoming more efficient in my study schedule rather than just doing PT after PT.

Don't worry about it man. Last weekend I didnt do anything either. I go back to work next month so I can't really waste too many more days! I'm curious: what's up with the Rondo avatar? Do you think he is a ball hog?

HELL NO haha. He is my favorite (and probably the most unselfish) player in the NBA. BallHog was just a random username. It was 4am and the first thing that came to mind.

HELL NO haha. He is my favorite (and probably the most unselfish) player in the NBA. BallHog was just a random username. It was 4am and the first thing that came to mind.[/quote]

Cool. I have liked Rondo since he played for UK.

This is the story of my life. Same score range ATM.

throw out links for motivational videos to keep the dream alive

I started working on binary grouping games today. Before continuing, I want to make sure that I have a good grasp on sufficient/necessary conditions. Can someone please look over my reasoning below to make sure that I'm understanding it correctly. I got the diagramming part down but want to make sure I understand the concept.

Example: Bananas are the only fruits eaten by the monkeys.
M-->B
~B-->~M

M is my sufficient conditon. The monkeys eating (M) is sufficient (enough) to conclude that the bananas are being eaten. The monkeys eating (M) is not necessary for the bananas to be eaten. A pig or some other animal could be eating the bananas.

B is the necessary condition. The bananas are necessary (required) for the monkeys to eat. If there are no bananas, the monkeys cannot eat. ~B-->~M.

The bananas are not sufficient (enough) for me to conclude that the monkeys are eating. I may have bananas, but the crazy pig might be eating them and not the monkeys!

Please let me know if I'm understanding the difference between the two conditions.

lol

Looks good. Just watch out - your conditional doesn't preclude monkeys from eating non-fruit food.

Looks good. Just watch out - your conditional doesn't preclude monkeys from eating non-fruit food.[/quote]
Thanks! I see what you mean. The monkeys may eat pizza and burgers too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x1jJvp1 ... re=related - Anthony Robbins motivates you in 20 Minutes

The most humbling experience for me, when studying for LSAT, is RC. I just did 13 games straight and went -0. I am averaging -3 on LR now. This might get to my head, so RC comes and straightens me out. Achieving -6 on RC feels better than my scores in LG and LR.

I'm posting this for those of you who, like me, may find necessary and sufficient assumptions a little difficult. I find that explaining things to others helps solidify concepts. I also think that sometimes it is easier to understand concepts from those who are not necessarily the brightest TLSers (i.e. people like me). Having said that, I did work this out on my own so double check my thinking.

Example in my prep course:
Xeno will craft paradoxes before Kevin does only if Hegel crafts paradoxes after Mike does.

Diagram:
X-K-->M-H
contrapositive:
~(M-H)-->~(X-K)

X-K is our sufficient condition. I saw a video on youtube where they called it the "dependent" condition, and that helped me understand it better. The sufficient condition is dependent on the necessary (independent condition)

Analysis:
1) Xeno crafting paradoxes before Kevin is enough to conclude that M-H. If you have X-K-->M-H
2) However, Xeno crafting paradoxes before Kevin is not necessary for M-H. There may be another condition such as P-S that can result in Hegel crafting paradoxes after Mike. P-S-->M-H. This is possible so X-H is then not necessary (required).
3) M-H IS required (necessary) for X-K. In fact if ~(M-H)-->~(X-K). Without M-H, X-K is not possible. Thus the term necessary (crucial, required, etc).
4) However, M-H is not sufficient to conclude X-K. It could be that even if Mike goes before Hagel, Xavier does NOT go before Hagel. Xavier can go after Kevin.

Thinking Concretely:
Here is a cleanup version using a simple example. Let us pretend that there are five basketball players who shoot hoops consecutively, one at a time. Each player shoots one basket and no two players shoot at the same time. The players are X,K, M, H, and P.

If X shoots first and K shoots third, then we know that our rule above is triggered. X-K --> That means that M cannot shoot fifth since M has to shoot before H. M can shoot either second or fourth.

Let us now pretend that M shoots first and H shoots 3rd. Does M shooting before H mean that mean that X-K? This is where sometimes I get confused, but here is why that shit is not necessarily true. Look at this possible order.
M K H P X
Even though M-H, that does not mean that X-K. As evident from the example above, X can shoot after K.

I found that thinking about this example using a concrete example helped me a little. Hopefully it helps someone out there too!

cheers!

Finished up a couple more chapters in the Manhattan L/R guide. Really liking this book thus far, it uses a lot less convoluted language than the PS L/R bible which makes it a lot more easier to follow and apply their concepts to actual questions. Their approach isn't anything new but they do a great job in ingraining the methods so that it becomes second nature to you. Almost half done, looking forward to going at PT's once this book is over and seeing whether improvements are made.

Just did PT 34 games section. Was doing fine up until game 4. . Haven't studied In/Out games but will get started on that ASAP

What's up with the curve on pt23, it was like a Christmas present to those who took it.




I missed 22 questions but ended up with a 165 wtf?

LG continues to be my most difficult section.

I am pleasantly surprised with my improvements in LR. I love me some LRB.

From here on out I think I'll be doing one timed LG per night and reviewing thoroughly. I gotta get over some innate LG anxiety and work on deductions and templates. I'll save ~10 for timed PTs before the exam. Le sigh, logic games... Le sigh.

I'm just getting started with it but I'm loving it already. Assumptions are some of my biggest challenges, and they're finally clicking. It's making me feel like I still can improve beyond the plateau

ilovelawtays (great name by the way) - could the same thing be happening to you that happens to many in the LR section? I tend to speed read in the LR section, because an inexorable anxiety takes over and I feel like I am pressed for time (when sometimes I may have managed to secure an extra three minutes).... There are sometimes when I read through the constrictions at a fast pace and miss some key ones, leaving my diagramming incomplete. The other day I was reviewing game types, and I rushed through it and said to myself "I can't figure out the game until I know where this variable stands, otherwise it's hell..." Turns out that for the first ten minutes I assumed that I had thoroughly read all the conditions, when really I had missed the key one which would have helped me solve the game in no time.

Did two RC sections tonight... one timed and one untimed. I got -7 on the untimed and -8 on the timed, so clearly its my actual comprehension thats the issue. One passage took 6.5 minutes and I got 5/6 on it, leaving me quite hopeful. I did however get very lucky in what I selected to take away from it, leading me to believe after a while I'll just know by the tone/structure of a passage what it will or is likely to ask.

I'm not sure what happens. I definitely freak out about running out of time, so I need to work on that for sure. I also just go blank for like 2 minutes prior to beginning any part of the LG section. I'll flip through all four games, decide they're all too difficult, panic, and then somehow calm down, find a linear game to start with, and then go from there. Usually around ~25min in I really have gained some momentum and confidence, but have only completed like 2.5 games. It's crazy, yo.

Today I tried to rip the catalytic converter out of my car and cleaned the house. I feel pretty guilty for not doing any LSAT stuff. Sigh. Bask in my shame.

I tried to clean my house, but got into a losing battle with some down stuffed couch cushions. Looks like a massacred hen house up in here. Wife fail.