JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread Forum

[ready4180]

Is everyone doing the DD schedule?

ETA: Have LRB and MLR. Which one first?

I did LRB then MLR. I did not feel very confident after finishing the LRB. I would do MLR first- then if you need more review I'd do the LRB.

I have the same question- LGB or MLG first? I have heard they differ significantly in approach, which the other "pairs" don't seem to.

MLG all the way. Only thing I don't like is their conditional chain approach. Other than that, everything else works for me on their approach.

Also voting for MLR (Argument Core is the bomb) but for more detail-oriented information (ie types of flaws), LRB. I'm doing a hybrid of both.

How do you do In/Out grouping games? I agree, I don't like conditional chains, but I've always struggled with In/Outs and I haven't yet found a way that really works for me...

[BlaqBella]

Is everyone doing the DD schedule?

ETA: Have LRB and MLR. Which one first?

I did LRB then MLR. I did not feel very confident after finishing the LRB. I would do MLR first- then if you need more review I'd do the LRB.

I have the same question- LGB or MLG first? I have heard they differ significantly in approach, which the other "pairs" don't seem to.

MLG all the way. Only thing I don't like is their conditional chain approach. Other than that, everything else works for me on their approach.

Also voting for MLR (Argument Core is the bomb) but for more detail-oriented information (ie types of flaws), LRB. I'm doing a hybrid of both.

How do you do In/Out grouping games? I agree, I don't like conditional chains, but I've always struggled with In/Outs and I haven't yet found a way that really works for me...

Well, I still rely on conditional chains for in/out grouping games just not in the way fashioned by Manhattan, where they set up binary columns marked as "in" "out" and place the variables in each columns while connecting them using arrows (chains) according to the rules.

I prefer Powerscore's/Steve Schwartz (LSAT blog) approach for these game types.

[wtrc]

Really glad to read this. The only thing I didn't like in MLG was the binary column approach. Every time I tried it I ended up just getting confused by a million arrows everywhere.

[ready4180]

[/quote]

Well, I still rely on conditional chains for in/out grouping games just not in the way fashioned by Manhattan, where they set up binary columns marked as "in" "out" and place the variables in each columns while connecting them using arrows (chains) according to the rules.

I prefer Powerscore's/Steve Schwartz (LSAT blog) approach for these game types.[/quote]

Thanks — I'll have to check out the LSAT blog then. I've read the LG Bible already but I can't really remember their tips, so i'll likely go through that again as well.

[Daily_Double]

Because I'm on my phone, I'll keep this relatively brief, PM me for a further explanation of In-Out methods if you need to. I liked Powerscore at the beginning, but found that the arrows don't convey the relationships as well as Manhattan's logic chain. Though I think Manhattan's logic chain is so time consuming and complex to organize effectively, that I prefer the LSAT blog's approach to it. While at first I didn't like this method because of the stress on conditionals, at this point I can diagram, explain, and quickly use, conditionals in my sleep, so it's the best method by comparison, for me. I would bet that if anyone worked on conditionals for long enough they would agree.

Here is an example

[BlaqBella]

Because I'm on my phone, I'll keep this relatively brief, PM me for a further explanation of In-Out methods if you need to. I liked Powerscore at the beginning, but found that the arrows don't convey the relationships as well as Manhattan's logic chain. Though I think Manhattan's logic chain is so time consuming and complex to organize effectively, that I prefer the LSAT blog's approach to it. While at first I didn't like this method because of the stress on conditionals, at this point I can diagram, explain, and quickly use, conditionals in my sleep, so it's the best method by comparison, for me. I would bet that if anyone worked on conditionals for long enough they would agree.

Here is an example

+1. Love conditional chains. I have, for the most part, been able to join at least two conditional chains together to form inferences. I also like that there is little room for guess work.

[BlaqBella]

As an update, we got the approval from Manhattan . As soon as I hear word on when its free for us to congregate, I'll let the group know!

ETA: Hopefully it will be in time for Thursday's review

[griffin.811]

Well that solves the TC issue!

[objection_your_honor]

About 100 questions into drilling assumption questions and they all seem pretty uncomplicated. Drilling by type is so key.

I'm also writing out argument cores at random.

[rebexness]

[CardozoLaw09]

As an update, we got the approval from Manhattan . As soon as I hear word on when its free for us to congregate, I'll let the group know!

ETA: Hopefully it will be in time for Thursday's review

Cool, sounds good.

[Daily_Double]

Finished PT 40. I'm not posting raw or scaled scores because of the large amount of annoyance I have at recognizing all four RC passages, and some of the answers, from Manhattan's RC, even though the two/three times I read it were in late December and early January. Because of my memory, I'm concluding the RC results were unrepresentative, and I think it would be misleading to post the corresponding scores. Good news is that I rocked RC, bad news is that I can't tell if it was due in a large part to learning from my mistakes, definitely some of this, or due to remembering which one of two was the answer, happened twice that I consciously know of.

PT 40, LR and LG

LR1: -1, #23, extra time
LG: -0, extra time
LR2: -2, #23, #26, buzzer-beater

[evolution]

Good news is that I rocked RC, bad news is that I can't tell if it was due in a large part to learning from my mistakes, definitely some of this, or due to remembering which one of two was the answer, happened twice that I consciously know of.

I'm wondering how long of a break (on average) one should take between writing a PT, and then re writing it. Do you remember how far apart the first time you took PT 40 was and the second time?

[RhymesLikeDimes]

About 100 questions into drilling assumption questions and they all seem pretty uncomplicated. Drilling by type is so key.

Did the same thing today. I got 4 of the first 10 wrong, then reviewed my LRB Assumption notes and got 70 of the next 72. I'm just now appreciating how important knowing the question type is on LR.

[CardozoLaw09]

Good news is that I rocked RC, bad news is that I can't tell if it was due in a large part to learning from my mistakes, definitely some of this, or due to remembering which one of two was the answer, happened twice that I consciously know of.

I'm wondering how long of a break (on average) one should take between writing a PT, and then re writing it. Do you remember how far apart the first time you took PT 40 was and the second time?

I think that depends entirely on how good your memory is and how much time you spent reviewing your PT the first time you took it. My memory is pretty good so it sucks that redoing PT's won't provide as accurate a gauge of where I'm at.

[Daily_Double]

Good news is that I rocked RC, bad news is that I can't tell if it was due in a large part to learning from my mistakes, definitely some of this, or due to remembering which one of two was the answer, happened twice that I consciously know of.

I'm wondering how long of a break (on average) one should take between writing a PT, and then re writing it. Do you remember how far apart the first time you took PT 40 was and the second time?

I haven't taken PT 40 before today. I just went through MRC a while ago, coincidentally, MRC used passages from PT 40. It was annoying because I wanted to look at new RC issues, and how they impacted my overall score, not see how well I learn from mistakes. I've never retaken a test before so I'm not exactly qualified to answer your question. Although I'd guess at least five weeks.

[wtrc]

Good news is that I rocked RC, bad news is that I can't tell if it was due in a large part to learning from my mistakes, definitely some of this, or due to remembering which one of two was the answer, happened twice that I consciously know of.

I'm wondering how long of a break (on average) one should take between writing a PT, and then re writing it. Do you remember how far apart the first time you took PT 40 was and the second time?

So I tried taking a PT like 3 months after taking it the first time. I remembered some basic stuff from RC, nothing too useful from LG (and at a certain point, most LG's blend together), and like 2 of the LR questions (one was very specific about a jury case and misconstruing of a certain word, I think).

I also took PT's 18+ months apart (studied for June 2011, now taking PT's that I used then). Don't remember anything- maybe the very very basic outline of RC, so I think my score is accurate, despite having taken the PT over a year ago.

[A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A]

Good news is that I rocked RC, bad news is that I can't tell if it was due in a large part to learning from my mistakes, definitely some of this, or due to remembering which one of two was the answer, happened twice that I consciously know of.

I'm wondering how long of a break (on average) one should take between writing a PT, and then re writing it. Do you remember how far apart the first time you took PT 40 was and the second time?

I haven't taken PT 40 before today. I just went through MRC a while ago, coincidentally, MRC used passages from PT 40. It was annoying because I wanted to look at new RC issues, and how they impacted my overall score, not see how well I learn from mistakes. I've never retaken a test before so I'm not exactly qualified to answer your question. Although I'd guess at least five weeks.

Does MRC cover everything? It looks small. I just got mine in the mail today. Didn't get RCB because everyone said it's shit.

[griffin.811]

PT 40:
LR-6
LG-6
RC-10

162

RC issues again. It seems like the later passages are giving me more trouble than the earlier ones. What to do, what to do, what to do....

Hopefully this weekend I can get LG under control too.

Only bright spot, LR is improving.

[Daily_Double]

Does MRC cover everything? It looks small. I just got mine in the mail today. Didn't get RCB because everyone said it's shit.

Definitely not everything, but it definitively contains the four passages from PT 40.

[Daily_Double]

For those who have taken PT 40 or are going to take at least one section of PT 40, and are going to participate in the review, make sure you note why you selected the answer choice you selected so we can make the review more productive.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

I'm a bit behind but I wrote 38 yesterday, inserted answers into LSATQA, and reviewed what I got wrong.

I'll be doing 39 tonight.

Then I'll assess weaknesses from the 2 PTs and get back to reviewing and drilling.

I still have to move on to LR and RC at some point. But only after I master LG Grouping as best I can and make sure I've got Sequencing (Linear) down pat as well.

[ricekrispies]

Decided to take a PT tonight and got absolutely dominated by the LR sections. -10 in the first one. Definitely a little demotivating but it also shows me what I need to work on. LR is a tough cookie to crack.

[CardozoLaw09]

Did 2 LG sections today from PT25 and PT13; -4 in 36 mins and -2 in 35 respectively. Going to review and drill some more LR.

[shieldofachilles]

Did 2 LG sections today from PT25 and PT13; -4 in 36 mins and -2 in 35 respectively. Going to review and drill some more LR.

dude ive been working in the book of ten that has 25 in it for the last week...whenever you get a chance hit up lg for 27...that shit totally kicked my ass. honestly i think it was the hardest games section i did these past two weeks. its the snakes and lizards game section. given i didnt do horribly (-4)..worst section i did this week. anyway..the problem wasnt that the games were insanely hard, but the "easy" game was harder than what "easy" games usually are and game 2 and 3 were wayyyyy time consuming. honestly the only thing contributing to that -4 was spending 5/6 minutes on the two easy games which werent all thaaatttt easy and leaving 10-12 minutes for the each of the other two games. if i didnt allocate the time right that -2 would have been at least a -10. id say for the section it was probly 1 difficulty 1, 1 difficulty 2, one game between 3 and 4 and one game was definitely a 4.

I guess this is a Tip: but kind of self evident if youve been doing games for a while. The key to the -1/-2/-0 scores been usually getting on the last 6/7 sections for me at least was knowing how to distribute time. that's the only thing drilling doesnt accomplish in a very effective way. for an lg section to work out its like doing 15 in 15 for lr. get those diff 1/2 games the fkkk out of the way and have the 15 minutes to spend on snakes and lizards in case you need it. Just my take.