JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread Forum

[Daily_Double]

Hey DD, sorry if I'm way late to this party but what & where are these sessions with Noah from Manhattan?

ETA: Also a West Coaster.

Online drilling, manhattan has to train people to teach, we're the test subjects, which I don't mind. The next one is Monday, March 11 – 2pm ET

[Guerrilla Logic]

checking in. did PT67 today and scored 169
RC -5
LR -0
LG -2
LR -5

a good improvement from my diag. 2 months ago when I wrote a 159. The thread has been encouraging. I'm going to get involved here and try to get in on some of the review sessions if there is still available space.

also a west coaster, Vegas area, I do wake up early so anything from noon eastern on is doable for me.

[Daily_Double]

checking in. did PT67 today and scored 169
RC -5
LR -0
LG -2
LR -5

a good improvement from my diag. 2 months ago when I wrote a 159. The thread has been encouraging. I'm going to get involved here and try to get in on some of the review sessions if there is still available space.

also a west coaster, Vegas area, I do wake up early so anything from noon eastern on is doable for me.

Good work. Available space isn't an issue, if you take PT 51 today/tomorrow you can review with us this weekend.

[Guerrilla Logic]

Sounds good.

[CanILive]

Taking everyone's advice and taking some time off from the LSAT this weekend,

It is my room mates birthday Saturday, so the test should be the very last thing on my mind.

[Outsider]

So, is the schedule on the first page still being followed, or has that been abandoned?

Edit: I see a few posts up Daily Double said you guys are on 51. Is there an updated schedule somewhere?

[crazyrobin]

So, is the schedule on the first page still being followed, or has that been abandoned?

Edit: I see a few posts up Daily Double said you guys are on 51. Is there an updated schedule somewhere?

The schedule is still being followed. I think DD or anyone will post the time in this thread whenever they figure out a time to review.

[alpha kenny body]

Midterms and work have been distracting the fuck out of my prep time. I'm thinking about not going on Spring Break and just taking a PT every other day and then when everyone resumes, I'll be caught up. I am taking 31 and 32 this weekend, reviewing next week and taking 2 midterms plus a presentation, 2 more prep tests next weekend, review. Then, on spring break if I take 5 prep tests then I'll start with everyone on schedule and use the in between prep tests as fresh experimental sections. So it'll look like this: 31/32 this weekend, 33/34 next weekend, 35-39 spring break, 50+ after spring break w/ 39-49 as experimental sections/drilling materials. Suggestions or opinions are welcome. I am confident I will hit in the high 160's by the end of spring break and that's when I go hard. I think I'll probably read Manhattan LR over break too as I've only read LRB.

[griffin.811]

Pretty sure games from 67 were a disaster. Especially the last one .

[bmore_md]

Anyone done 55 yet? The curve seems ridiculous.

[Kool-Aid]

Anyone done 55 yet? The curve seems ridiculous.

On break with pt 55 as I type. Haven't looked at the curve yet, but I'm not feeling great about RC although the passages weren't difficult to comprehend. We'll see...

[tuffyjohnson]

Checking in JUNE LSAT: spent 45 hours in 2.5 weeks studying LG. Finally some progress--so I tried some my first RC. OUCH! Hoping I can learn RC like I'm learning LG.

[Sourrudedude]

.

[Daily_Double]

PT 51 review Sunday evening, does that work for most people?

[objection_your_honor]

That's fine.

EDIT: May not be able to attend no matter when it is, so don't wait up.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

PT 51 review Sunday evening, does that work for most people?

I'm down for that

[natashka85]

PT 51 review Sunday evening, does that work for most people?

I'm down for that

no ,it doesn`t work for me,do in the afternoon.

[bmore_md]

Random anecdote but I think it is very difficult to figure out how you did after taking each test. I just did 33 and felt ok throughout, but then ran out of time and didn't do the last game. Turns out I hit 173 which is 6 above my high which I was having trouble breaking. In fairness, I'd seen some of the questions before (including a game) so the result isn't fully indicative. Nevertheless, it's a process and you can't get too down because you messed up a game or something.

[Daily_Double]

Random anecdote but I think it is very difficult to figure out how you did after taking each test. I just did 33 and felt ok throughout, but then ran out of time and didn't do the last game. Turns out I hit 173 which is 6 above my high which I was having trouble breaking. In fairness, I'd seen some of the questions before (including a game) so the result isn't fully indicative. Nevertheless, it's a process and you can't get too down because you messed up a game or something.

That's exactly what the goal is to avoid. The reason you don't know how you did is because you're unsure about some of your answers. The challenge is to be sure about as many of them is possible.

[phillywc]

I'm way behind you guys but I'm confused and I don't think its worth a topic.

I took my third practice test today, (number 9) and I thought I did very poorly on it, the LR a bit but especially the LG. I ran out of time and went through the last game in about 3-4 minutes and the second to last in about 5. I was sure I bombed it, but I only missed 2, both in the last games. My total score came out to a 176.

I guess my question is, does anyone else feel like they are bombing the LG almost every time but usually do well (small sample size but its been my best section or tied for best every time)? I hear everyone talking about all the different strategies for LG, if my random mapping out is working well enough is it worth learning one of these systems? Also I'm already in the range where I want to score, should I focus on consistency or learning new stuff? I have the LR book because it's been my weakest section thus far, would the rest help?

Thanks for the help and for reading the long ramble-y post.

[Sourrudedude]

.

[bmore_md]

Random anecdote but I think it is very difficult to figure out how you did after taking each test. I just did 33 and felt ok throughout, but then ran out of time and didn't do the last game. Turns out I hit 173 which is 6 above my high which I was having trouble breaking. In fairness, I'd seen some of the questions before (including a game) so the result isn't fully indicative. Nevertheless, it's a process and you can't get too down because you messed up a game or something.

That's exactly what the goal is to avoid. The reason you don't know how you did is because you're unsure about some of your answers. The challenge is to be sure about as many of them is possible.

Well obviously, but I'm normally 0 or -1 in LG so when you bomb that section it's going to make me feel real shitty.

ETA: My bombing was due to running out of time.

[objection_your_honor]

PT 51

LR: -4 (-2 from time)
RC: -3 (-1 from time)
LR: -0
LG: -0

93 / 174

This PT was a wake up call. I started the test very nervous and over-caffeinated. I could hardly keep sentences in my head before they disappeared, leading to a lot of rereading and mental fumbles. I took 30 mins after the first LR to compose myself. It was hard to even finish the section without ragequitting.

This is also the first test for which I used an analog timer. I think I was growing dependent on knowing my time down to the second, and the lack of precision (this is an $8 watch) definitely affected my ability to keep pace. I thought this was an easy LG section — the only "twists" were the conditional rules on the second game. Went into the last game with about 20 minutes left.

[eliztudorr]

Can someone please help me with a few LRs from PT 34 S3

#12, 19

thanks you

[Daily_Double]

Can someone please help me with a few LRs from PT 34 S3

#12, 19

thanks you

Thanks for the question.

PT 34, S3, Q12: Complete the statement, I'd call this an inference question.

Core: Politician says that some people say the city's future depends upon compromise, which is defined as people working together. Then he says if you compromise then you betray the goals. Therefore, those people are suggesting to betray the goals.

The critic points out the flaw contained in the Politician's argument. The question asks you to fill in the gap, the critic is about to say that the politician's argument depends upon the interpretation of the word compromise. The gap here is the difference between compromising the Charter's principles and compromising to work together. I caught it and came up with the answer before I moved to the answers, so I didn't really eliminate anything, what lead you to the wrong answer/what did you feel supported other answers?

The politician's argument, if it were the question stimulus of a S/A question would lead one to the answer which says something along the lines of if you put differences aside and work with each other then you will compromise the Charter's principles.

PT 34, S3, Q19: Most Strongly Supported/Inference

Core: If photons hit pigment R, then the molecules change shape, then light. But, sometimes, they change shape on their own, which leads to vision errors. There's a direct relationship between retina temperature and this random motion which leads to vision errors.

Before I even look at the answers, I'd come up with a likely candidate, in this case it would be if retina temperature were high, then one might have vision errors.

My answer selection process, first I eliminate the ones which are clearly out of scope: A axed, B keep it for now, C axed, D keep it for now, E axed. So, we're down to B and D. Let's look a little closer. B, yep that matches the language of the argument and is in line with the relationship described above. D, we don't know anything about surface areas, furthermore, even if we did, we would have to stretch to say something about the sensitivity of R, axed for scope.

As a side note, #19 doesn't really have a core, I just reduced it to aid the process. Any more questions?