December 2012 Re-takers Forum

[PickledPanda]

Um, excuse me?

And Al and worm and everyone. It's just those two started the love snowball this morning

[gettingerdone]

What is the consensus of the extent to which PT's you have done already are indicative of an actual score range? Minus 5-7 points or so? More?

[jns66]

I'm also interested in this - I got 180 on 65 yesterday and had taken the test almost 3 months ago.... It's hard when you have been drilling so much for so long. Not sure if I will be able to get any sort of accurate score indication prior to December AH. How are you all combating this?

[beyondabilities]

I'm also interested in this - I got 180 on 65 yesterday and had taken the test almost 3 months ago.... It's hard when you have been drilling so much for so long. Not sure if I will be able to get any sort of accurate score indication prior to December AH. How are you all combating this?

I actually got a 180 on the retake of PT 65 too lol

If you have nearly exhausted all the recent PTs (which I am close to doing as well) the only thing I have thought of is to go back to the earlier 90s tests and just do the two second, LGS, RCs, and numbers 15-25 of the LRs of those tests. Its definitely not a great substitute for actual tests but continuously challenging yourself with whatever tough questions you can find is probably the next best bet after PTs.

Also, when I do retakes, I make sure to go through every AC and mentally justify to myself why i am picking one and not picking the other four, even if I sort of remember what the answer is. This keeps you engaged at a deeper level and is really the only way to make sure you have actually learned from you mistakes.

[annet]

I'm in a surprisingly nice Residence Inn in Michigan, so I'm hoping I'll be able to get some decent drilling in after I finish up with work. Just remember guys - December 1 is not far away. You can have free time after December 1, but you don't want to get another disappointing score, so put everything you've got into studying!!

Must focus on that. I've already absolved myself of all cooking until December 1st (oh hai Pizza Tracker). I can't study at work so I'm using that down time to plan Thanksgiving and a family reunion. Otherwise EYES ON PRIZE.

Going to try and finish drilling necessary assumption questions tonight. They're killing me, so at least I've identified a weakness.

[gguuueessttt]

What is the consensus of the extent to which PT's you have done already are indicative of an actual score range? Minus 5-7 points or so? More?

There really isn't any way to make a generalization about that. It depends on a few factors (how well you reviewed the first time, how much you remember specific questions, whether there's a big difference in your timing and/or confidence when you're doing a PT for the second time).

[desiballa21]

Finally got around to doing PT21:

LG -0
LR1 -2
LR2 -7 (!!)
RC -2

172. Going to review them but damn that 7 on the section is terrible.

[M.M.]

What approach do you guys use for inference / must be true LR questions?

Out of all my LR missed they comprise 40% of missed questions. Gonna re-read MLR guide today on them and drill about 50 of em

Edit:


lolz just sat at my regular seat at the library and realized I left about 50 pages of LG and LR here from last time, surprised they aren't gone

Also ... I just sat down to review the PT I took yesterday and am realizing reviewing has never been constructive, and has always been painful for me; I don't really know how to do it and I feel better gains could be made just by concentrating on my (by far) weakest section, games and drilling Inference / MBT and Necessary / Sufficient Assumptions. I'm consistently going -1 to -2 on LR and RC so there isn't much to review there and I don't really know how to anyway ... basically the consensus on TLS is that you drill to proficiency, then PT and remove weaknesses, but I haven't really drilled games to proficiency apparently, so should I just forego reviewing PTs? I know what my weaknesses are on a superficial level (in terms of question types missed).

I was never a big fan of reviewing before October either. I looked at what I got wrong, and figured out why the correct answer was right but that was it. Figuring out what trap you fell for and writing down why you picked the wrong answer has actually been tremendously helpful for me the past few weeks. I've been able to spot the traps a lot easier and make fewer mistakes now.

I highly recommend our Tinychat review sessions (or reviewing with someone else in real life). Explaining why something is right even if you didn't miss it to someone else also helps a ton.

When do we do the tiny chat sessions, and what test will we be doing next?

Also, I really don't know how to look for what "traps" there are...

[Lenahan3]

PT 14 today:

Saw parts of it about 6 months ago, so I can't claim it's a pure score, but it's close.

LG: -0
LR: -1
Ex. LR: -1
RC: -2 (missed back-to-back-questions)
LR: -1

177/180

Felt decent, definitely better than I did over the weekend. I am, however, ready to get back on the modern PT's. These old ones are a headache.

[mcs268]

Retook test 60.

LG: -3 (my worst showing in awhile..)
LR: -2 total
RC: -1

-6/175

LG was combination of silly mistakes and a poor approach to a relative ordering set that involved stupidly framing around a conditional rule. sent me into panic moe which hasn't happened to me in awhile..hopefully next test (61) will be easier.

[desiballa21]

PT 14 today:

Saw parts of it about 6 months ago, so I can't claim it's a pure score, but it's close.

LG: -0
LR: -1
Ex. LR: -1
RC: -2 (missed back-to-back-questions)
LR: -1

177/180

Felt decent, definitely better than I did over the weekend. I am, however, ready to get back on the modern PT's. These old ones are a headache.

W/ you on the headache. They're a little wordier right?

[Lenahan3]

PT 14 today:

Saw parts of it about 6 months ago, so I can't claim it's a pure score, but it's close.

LG: -0
LR: -1
Ex. LR: -1
RC: -2 (missed back-to-back-questions)
LR: -1

177/180

Felt decent, definitely better than I did over the weekend. I am, however, ready to get back on the modern PT's. These old ones are a headache.

W/ you on the headache. They're a little wordier right?

Yeah, particularly the LR sections. And they're messy.

[M.M.]

Why can't I just be decent at LG

Deductions fucking suck. So many hours spent just sitting in the library losing my mind at this shit, I seriously feel like I'm going to be sick right now

[GabeQuixote]

PT 14 today:

Saw parts of it about 6 months ago, so I can't claim it's a pure score, but it's close.

LG: -0
LR: -1
Ex. LR: -1
RC: -2 (missed back-to-back-questions)
LR: -1

177/180

Felt decent, definitely better than I did over the weekend. I am, however, ready to get back on the modern PT's. These old ones are a headache.

W/ you on the headache. They're a little wordier right?

Aren't you a little amazed by your higher LSAT performance in practices? We got the same LSAT score in December I think but you're absolutely killing the practices -- I know you've slowed down your speed and are throwing in experimentals but there just seems like there's a piece of the puzzle missing.

My PTs since the Zones debacle have been: 40 (167), 41 (168), 42 (171).

If I scored 175 I'd be amazed by the score and know exactly what clicked: consistency. I can go 0 on any section, but I've never done so all at once.

[Lenahan3]

PT 14 today:

Saw parts of it about 6 months ago, so I can't claim it's a pure score, but it's close.

LG: -0
LR: -1
Ex. LR: -1
RC: -2 (missed back-to-back-questions)
LR: -1

177/180

Felt decent, definitely better than I did over the weekend. I am, however, ready to get back on the modern PT's. These old ones are a headache.

W/ you on the headache. They're a little wordier right?

Aren't you a little amazed by your higher LSAT performance in practices? We got the same LSAT score in December I think but you're absolutely killing the practices -- I know you've slowed down your speed and are throwing in experimentals but there just seems like there's a piece of the puzzle missing.

My PTs since the Zones debacle have been: 40 (167), 41 (168), 42 (171).

If I scored 175 I'd be amazed by the score and know exactly what clicked: consistency. I can go 0 on any section, but I've never done so all at once.

No, I'm not really amazed. I'm not sure what your PT's were like leading up to October but my PT average leading up to October was in the midlow 170's (173 or 174, I can't remember which one it was). My PT average is higher now, yes, but when I factor in that some of them were retakes along with the fact that I've revamped my techniques, it isn't too mind-boggling. I got a 165 because I just fucked everything up that could possibly be fucked up plus some, at least in comparison to my PT's (of my last 10 PT's my lowest score was a 169 and my lowest ever was 166).

Check this out:

My lowest ever RC was -7, which I tied on test day.
My lowest ever LR was -5 (both sections combined), and I went -9 on test day. Awesome.

Does that fill that missing piece up a little bit?

[GabeQuixote]

PT 14 today:

Saw parts of it about 6 months ago, so I can't claim it's a pure score, but it's close.

LG: -0
LR: -1
Ex. LR: -1
RC: -2 (missed back-to-back-questions)
LR: -1

177/180

Felt decent, definitely better than I did over the weekend. I am, however, ready to get back on the modern PT's. These old ones are a headache.

W/ you on the headache. They're a little wordier right?

Aren't you a little amazed by your higher LSAT performance in practices? We got the same LSAT score in December I think but you're absolutely killing the practices -- I know you've slowed down your speed and are throwing in experimentals but there just seems like there's a piece of the puzzle missing.

My PTs since the Zones debacle have been: 40 (167), 41 (168), 42 (171).

If I scored 175 I'd be amazed by the score and know exactly what clicked: consistency. I can go 0 on any section, but I've never done so all at once.

No, I'm not really amazed. I'm not sure what your PT's were like leading up to October but my PT average leading up to October was in the midlow 170's (173 or 174, I can't remember which one it was). My PT average is higher now, yes, but when I factor in that some of them were retakes along with the fact that I've revamped my techniques, it isn't too mind-boggling. I got a 165 because I just fucked everything up that could possibly be fucked up plus some, at least in comparison to my PT's (of my last 10 PT's my lowest score was a 169 and my lowest ever was 166).

Check this out:

My lowest ever RC was -7, which I tied on test day.
My lowest ever LR was -5 (both sections combined), and I went -9 on test day. Awesome.

Does that fill that missing piece up a little bit?

I was doing 174, and got a 166.

But I have never broken 174. I think if I hit 176 I would biochemically go nuclear.

[Lenahan3]

I was doing 174, and got a 166.

But I have never broken 174. I think if I hit 176 I would biochemically go nuclear.

My highest PT was a 178, pre-test.

[GabeQuixote]

I was doing 174, and got a 166.

But I have never broken 174. I think if I hit 176 I would biochemically go nuclear.

My highest PT was a 178, pre-test.

You using LSAT QA?

[Lenahan3]

I was doing 174, and got a 166.

But I have never broken 174. I think if I hit 176 I would biochemically go nuclear.

My highest PT was a 178, pre-test.

You using LSAT QA?

Yeah. I didn't know that existed pre-test, unfortunately. You?

[M.M.]

I was doing 174, and got a 166.

But I have never broken 174. I think if I hit 176 I would biochemically go nuclear.

My highest PT was a 178, pre-test.

You using LSAT QA?

Yeah. I didn't know that existed pre-test, unfortunately. You?

How does LSATQA help you in ways that 3link's spreadsheet doesn't?

[GabeQuixote]

I was doing 174, and got a 166.

But I have never broken 174. I think if I hit 176 I would biochemically go nuclear.

My highest PT was a 178, pre-test.

You using LSAT QA?

Yeah. I didn't know that existed pre-test, unfortunately. You?

Yeah -- that X/Y graph helps identify weak areas very well.

Kind of down that three weeks out I'm still hovering around 170.

[Lenahan3]

LsatQA hasn't actually helped me as much as I'd hoped, at least not yet. The questions I'm missing are scattered and random.

[GabeQuixote]

LsatQA hasn't actually helped me as much as I'd hoped, at least not yet. The questions I'm missing are scattered and random.

I am consistently 177+ were I to get all 1 and 2 star questions right from the ones I got wrong.

[Cobretti]

In case anyone was getting burned out on studying:

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
-Sun Tzu

[GabeQuixote]

In case anyone was getting burned out on studying:

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
-Sun Tzu

"I will either find a way, or make one." - Hannibal Barca