JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread Forum

[Daily_Double]

I haven't posted in a bit but have been following the progress of this thread. I figured I give a little update on my own progress or lack there of haha.

After a 173 on pt 53, I've went 164,166,164,169 on pts 55,58,51, and 60 respectively. I'm taking a pt every Wednesday and Saturday, and will continue to do so up until June. I'll probably start adding an experimental section next week.

I'm still trying to find an ideal way to warm up before each test, because my first section (which has been LR on each of the tests I've taken) has been my worst overall section scoring wise. Anybody have any advice on warming up before taking a pt?

Good to have you back. I think the warm up is a very underrated part of prep. The issue is that you have all this knowledge about the LSAT, then you're confronted with a funky stimulus/passage/game and all that preparation falls to the side and you just go off a gut instinct. Which is what LSAC wants, don't give them what they want. Before every PT I look at a couple old games, diagram them, don't do the questions, just diagram, look for inferences, then look at an old RC passage, not the questions, just the passage, and visualize the scale, do a few notations, come up with a sample answer for the argument structure, main point, what the author would agree with/where his voice is most evident, and get in the rhythm. I haven't really been focusing on LR because it's always been my best section.

Also, your scores are all over the place, no offense, but how effectively are you reviewing?

[CardozoLaw09]

Also as a quick tip for those of you who are still drilling and/or pressed for time on LR: work on the assumption family. Why? Because assumption stimuli are the easiest to come up with a potential answer for. They all have a gap, the correct answer will always address that gap. Put in your time on the assumption family and you'll finish them faster, these stimuli types are easily 1/3 of LR sections, don't quote me on that, but I'm pretty sure that's somewhat accurate, if not understating the truth. If you finish assumption questions faster, you'll have more time for inference and matching.

As a side note, I really like diagramming/notating matching questions, they're really not hard once you get the hang of them.

I almost never do any diagramming for matching questions, to me they're the easiest question type which is strange because I know a lot of people struggle with them. As long as you can follow the structure of the logic in the stimulus and pay attention to modifiers then they shouldn't be all that hard to do in your head. There's only a small margin for error or deviation given the lengthy stimulus so I find it pretty easy to eliminate wrong answers on matching Qs and just arrive at the right answer through POE.

[052220151]

I just reviewed my last two PTs and noticed on q's with EXCEPT verbiage I tend to get them wrong more frequently even though the question isn't that hard. I have a feeling that realizing this and spending more time on those Qs will bump my PT avg/median up a substantial amount. It's really disappointing it took me this long to figure out this non-earth shattering piece of wisdom.

[Daily_Double]

Also as a quick tip for those of you who are still drilling and/or pressed for time on LR: work on the assumption family. Why? Because assumption stimuli are the easiest to come up with a potential answer for. They all have a gap, the correct answer will always address that gap. Put in your time on the assumption family and you'll finish them faster, these stimuli types are easily 1/3 of LR sections, don't quote me on that, but I'm pretty sure that's somewhat accurate, if not understating the truth. If you finish assumption questions faster, you'll have more time for inference and matching.

As a side note, I really like diagramming/notating matching questions, they're really not hard once you get the hang of them.

I almost never do any diagramming for matching questions, to me they're the easiest question type which is strange because I know a lot of people struggle with them. As long as you can follow the structure of the logic in the stimulus and pay attention to modifiers then they shouldn't be all that hard to do in your head.

Very true. I consider them to be free points, which is why I try to be careful to not be stupid, also my diagram is usually something along the lines of:

A ---> B
~B
Therefore: ~A

or another classic flawed matching:

A ---> B
~A
Therefore: ~B

Although one of the tricky parts of matching questions are degree modifiers, I circle those.

[Kool-Aid]

I haven't posted in a bit but have been following the progress of this thread. I figured I give a little update on my own progress or lack there of haha.

After a 173 on pt 53, I've went 164,166,164,169 on pts 55,58,51, and 60 respectively. I'm taking a pt every Wednesday and Saturday, and will continue to do so up until June. I'll probably start adding an experimental section next week.

I'm still trying to find an ideal way to warm up before each test, because my first section (which has been LR on each of the tests I've taken) has been my worst overall section scoring wise. Anybody have any advice on warming up before taking a pt?

Good to have you back. I think the warm up is a very underrated part of prep. The issue is that you have all this knowledge about the LSAT, then you're confronted with a funky stimulus/passage/game and all that preparation falls to the side and you just go off a gut instinct. Which is what LSAC wants, don't give them what they want. Before every PT I look at a couple old games, diagram them, don't do the questions, just diagram, look for inferences, then look at an old RC passage, not the questions, just the passage, and visualize the scale, do a few notations, come up with a sample answer for the argument structure, main point, what the author would agree with/where his voice is most evident, and get in the rhythm. I haven't really been focusing on LR because it's always been my best section.

Also, your scores are all over the place, no offense, but how effectively are you reviewing?

I usually just do a game or two for warm up so I'll try that strategy. Thanks

The last few tests are a more accurate gauge of where I am at this point in my studies if I'm going to be honest with myself. I do believe I can pull off a 170+ like I did with that 173, but I believe it was more of a fluke thing at this point. I just started doing blind review after my last two tests because I did feel I could get a little more out of them, and although it's time consuming as hell I think it's helping.

Also, despite being able to go -0 on games I keep missing a couple on each section. They're mistakes I shouldn't make, and I just have to pay better attention.

[bdeans91]

Does anyone find that when they drill LR questions by type/difficulty, the highest difficulty LR questions are more about understanding archaic language and superfluous wording than actually comprehending the arguments at hand?

I find that with the higher level questions, say for Flaw, I can pre-phrase an answer and immediately recognize the flaw, but the wording of the answer options is just so damn awkward.

Yes and yes. Not only wording in the ACs, wording in stimulus is freaking bizarre. PTs after 30 are so much better.

Well I've mostly been drilling PTs below 20, so I am probably cutting my teeth with the tougher material then.

[Daily_Double]

Does anyone find that when they drill LR questions by type/difficulty, the highest difficulty LR questions are more about understanding archaic language and superfluous wording than actually comprehending the arguments at hand?

I find that with the higher level questions, say for Flaw, I can pre-phrase an answer and immediately recognize the flaw, but the wording of the answer options is just so damn awkward.

Yes and yes. Not only wording in the ACs, wording in stimulus is freaking bizarre. PTs after 30 are so much better.

Well I've mostly been drilling PTs below 20, so I am probably cutting my teeth with the tougher material then.

Below 20 blows. I started there with Cambridge's Difficult Problems and was missing more than usual, which still wasn't that much, but it was a wake up call, so I reviewed, then moved to the 30s and was lights out, like Halladay before his back sprain. So I think it's just a difference in time, stick to the 30s and onward for LR and RC, in my opinion. Although do all the old games, again and again.

Actually, let me rephrase that. The ones and twos in Cambridge, which spanned PTs 1-38, were fine, but the difficult problems, level fours, were funky from 1-20.

[bdeans91]

Does anyone find that when they drill LR questions by type/difficulty, the highest difficulty LR questions are more about understanding archaic language and superfluous wording than actually comprehending the arguments at hand?

I find that with the higher level questions, say for Flaw, I can pre-phrase an answer and immediately recognize the flaw, but the wording of the answer options is just so damn awkward.

Yes and yes. Not only wording in the ACs, wording in stimulus is freaking bizarre. PTs after 30 are so much better.

Well I've mostly been drilling PTs below 20, so I am probably cutting my teeth with the tougher material then.

Below 20 blows. I started there with Cambridge's Difficult Problems and was missing more than usual, which still wasn't that much, but it was a wake up call, so I reviewed, then moved to the 30s and was lights out, like Halladay before his back sprain. So I think it's just a difference in time, stick to the 30s and onward for LR and RC, in my opinion. Although do all the old games, again and again.

Actually, let me rephrase that. The ones and twos in Cambridge, which spanned PTs 1-38, were fine, but the difficult problems, level fours, were funky from 1-20.

Okay awesome. That's my exact issue. The level fours on 1-20.

[bdeans91]

Actually, in light of what Daily_Double just mentioned, I want to run a few questions by you guys.

First of all, I am thinking that over the rest of the month I will do all of my full LR and full RC sections (drilling) from PTs 31-39 since they may reflect better what current exams are like.

Second, I am thinking about doing full PTs 40, 41, and 42 this month instead of Super Prep B and C. This is because 40-42 are more current and probably reflect what I will be facing on gameday a bit better.

Also, when drilling LR I am mostly going to focus on volume 2 of the Cambridge books by type, because apparently Volume 1 level 4 is a bit funky.

You guys think I'm making the right moves here?!

Thanks for your input.

[Daily_Double]

Okay awesome. That's my exact issue. The level fours on 1-20.

Some of those problems are so funky that I'd rather watch Batman and Robin again. And in the event you haven't seen it, watch it, yes it's so bad that you need to see how bad it is. Arnold Schwarzenegger... just no.

[Daily_Double]

You guys think I'm making the right moves here?!

Others can provide more guidance, but it's pretty obvious where I stand on the issue:

LR Drilling: Ones and Twos from Cambridge PTs 1-38, this will help you reinforce the basics, and there's not that much difference between a level two and a level four from an abstract level. Don't do the threes and fours, or keep it to a minimum, because otherwise you'll reduce the effectiveness of potentially, you should do this, using old sections, I recommend the 30s, as 5th sections.

RC Drilling: Really there's not that much difference here between PTs 1-38. I'd focus on the 20s for drilling, untimed, then use the 30s for a 5th sections.

PTs: Take them in a mixed fashion from 39-60, then redo the 60s as back-back tests in May/June.

So in summary.

First of all, I am thinking that over the rest of the month I will do all of my full LR and full RC sections (drilling) from PTs 31-39 since they may reflect better what current exams are like.

No, don't do full sections. See LR and RC drilling above. You should use the sections from the 30s for a fifth, I recommend switching from LR as a fifth, to RC as a fifth, and throw LG in there too, if you want. And take the fifth section (experimental) first.

Second, I am thinking about doing full PTs 40, 41, and 42 this month instead of Super Prep B and C. This is because 40-42 are more current and probably reflect what I will be facing on gameday a bit better.

This doesn't really matter that much in terms of order, I'm ok with it, but I'd suggest more PTs.

Also, when drilling LR I am mostly going to focus on volume 2 of the Cambridge books by type, because apparently Volume 1 level 4 is a bit funky.

I'm not familiar with the differences between Volume One and Volume Two, but I probably answered it above. Good luck and keep grinding.

[wtrc]

Happy weekend everyone!

How much has LSAT studying affected your weekend plans/social life at this point, three months out?

[Daily_Double]

Happy weekend everyone!

How much has LSAT studying affected your weekend plans/social life at this point, three months out?

I only go out twice a week now, I eliminated Saturday nights. So not that much. Although, I've started assignments/studying for school stuff really early to accommodate for reviews/PTs and the obnoxious amount of TV I watch... Three words, Game of Thrones.

[rebexness]

Happy weekend everyone!

How much has LSAT studying affected your weekend plans/social life at this point, three months out?

lolsociallife.

*pets cats*

[mvonh001]

So I take it that I should leave out the level 3's and 4's of the cambridge 1-38 LR packets? I dont see how that will be beneficial for me in the long run, as I just completed my first section of the packets - must be true - and went -7 on the first 86, all category 1 and category 2, but i went -26 on the last 69, all category 3 and 4. I did not use your method of half of 1 and half of 2 then half of 1 and half of 3 then half of 2 then half of 4, but i will use that method from this point on. I have not gone over the questions i got wrong yet, but is there something i should be doing to get all of the level 4's right? Or is it just a problem of the times the tests that im getting the questions wrong came from (e.g. mainly from 1-20 pt)?

[CardozoLaw09]

Benefits/drawbacks to writing out hypos before beginning questions in LG? I never used to do this, but if it helps I may start doing hypos just to get a feel for how the rules interact with each other.

[eliztudorr]

horrible late observation, but is it just me or LR question start getting more complicated since the mid 50s....like answer choices are twisted and stuff =.= and stims are getting less straight forward. just my own feel..or im just getting dumber as i do more questions...i don't know

[eliztudorr]

Benefits/drawbacks to writing out hypos before beginning questions in LG? I never used to do this, but if it helps I may start doing hypos just to get a feel for how the rules interact with each other.

i find it help a lot on certain games where there's really only 3 hypo. but if there's like 5+ then NO....

like if there's really only 3-4 hypo derive from a certain rule, then i say go for it. most of the time where i see a possible 3-4 hypo, i finish the game within 5 minutes. try it. see if you like it. if not, then don't.

[CardozoLaw09]

Benefits/drawbacks to writing out hypos before beginning questions in LG? I never used to do this, but if it helps I may start doing hypos just to get a feel for how the rules interact with each other.

i find it help a lot on certain games where there's really only 3 hypo. but if there's like 5+ then NO....

like if there's really only 3-4 hypo derive from a certain rule, then i say go for it. most of the time where i see a possible 3-4 hypo, i finish the game within 5 minutes. try it. see if you like it. if not, then don't.

Cool, thanks! Can you give me an example of a game where's there's only 3 or 4 possible solutions?

[CardozoLaw09]

horrible late observation, but is it just me or LR question start getting more complicated since the mid 50s....like answer choices are twisted and stuff =.= and stims are getting less straight forward. just my own feel..or im just getting dumber as i do more questions...i don't know

Absolutely. The more recent tests require you to be much more detail oriented with respect to the answer choices. I feel like the older tests have more obvious wrong answers than the more recent tests so it's essential you develop a more keen eye to detail for the recent ones.

[Daily_Double]

horrible late observation, but is it just me or LR question start getting more complicated since the mid 50s....like answer choices are twisted and stuff =.= and stims are getting less straight forward. just my own feel..or im just getting dumber as i do more questions...i don't know

Haha, no you're not getting dumber. They're about the same in my opinion, maybe slight differences in answers due to precision, but that's only judging from 67 and 66. You just have to remember to not get caught up in the weeds that are the wrong answers.

[bdeans91]

Happy weekend everyone!

How much has LSAT studying affected your weekend plans/social life at this point, three months out?

My girlfriend sees me only 1-2x per week.

And I don't go out to party anymore because the lack of sleep from a long night out may affect an entire day's productivity.

I look at it this way... I am literally studying for future money in my pocket... In Canada this means 90k a year, in the States 160+... That's a lot of money and valuing partying over that (when the time frame is so small to study for this exam) seems foolish.

[eliztudorr]

Benefits/drawbacks to writing out hypos before beginning questions in LG? I never used to do this, but if it helps I may start doing hypos just to get a feel for how the rules interact with each other.

i find it help a lot on certain games where there's really only 3 hypo. but if there's like 5+ then NO....

like if there's really only 3-4 hypo derive from a certain rule, then i say go for it. most of the time where i see a possible 3-4 hypo, i finish the game within 5 minutes. try it. see if you like it. if not, then don't.

Cool, thanks! Can you give me an example of a game where's there's only 3 or 4 possible solutions?

i was just about to look up some to let you tryyyyy....hmmmm i saw this one that i made a huge note saying MASTER THE SETUP. try PT10 G2. when i first did it when i just began LG, it took me 18 min lol shame on me. but then i tried it again, with hypo and it got easier. try it.

[objection_your_honor]

Dozo, PT 51 game 3 is like that.

[Daily_Double]

I have not gone over the questions i got wrong yet, but is there something i should be doing to get all of the level 4's right? Or is it just a problem of the times the tests that im getting the questions wrong came from (e.g. mainly from 1-20 pt)?

You're looking at it. Splitting the sections into 1/2 level one and 1/2 level two worked for me, it gives you a feel for the different levels of difficulty. I'd suggest reviewing after doing 30 problems though, it sounds like you did a bunch before reviewing, which is the way you get better.

I dont see how that will be beneficial for me in the long run

Leaving out the threes and fours, or only doing a portion less than/equal to half of them will be beneficial because of two things: first off, the early tests (pre-30s) are different from the late 60s, secondly, by not doing the level threes and fours you can save these sections, 30s, to use a fifth section later.