JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread Forum

[kmc]

checking in. got my score today. did well (not minimizing it at all), but not as well as i want to. so, hi! i will be joining you.

[Sourrudedude]

.

[Sourrudedude]

.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

Welcome pissed off February folk.

To be clear, this is not the thread for stupid memes and witty banter. Here, we go hard for the LSAT.

Best of luck. That is all.

[A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A]

Welcome pissed off February folk.

To be clear, this is not the thread for stupid memes and witty banter. Here, we go hard for the LSAT.

Best of luck. That is all.

To be fair, I have two stupid memes in the 2P, but they are June flavored.
Welcome aboard the scholar ship, retakers.

[steven21]

I posted this in the main forum already(advice on improving from low 160s to 170), I want to also get advice from people also studying for june test. I usually score in the 160-163 range. Two highest scores have been a 167 (-0 on LG, -11 on LR, and -6 on RC). Score breakdown on average is usually is LG -0 to -1, LR -11 to -14, RC -6 to -7. Any advice on raising score to 170-173 by mid-May(june registration date)? Is it even possible to do?

[rebexness]

I posted this in the main forum already(advice on improving from low 160s to 170), I want to also get advice from people also studying for june test. I usually score in the 160-163 range. Two highest scores have been a 167 (-0 on LG, -11 on LR, and -6 on RC). Score breakdown on average is usually is LG -0 to -1, LR -11 to -14, RC -6 to -7. Any advice on raising score to 170-173 by mid-May(june registration date)? Is it even possible to do?

Super Possible. For one, check out NoodleyOne's guide for Retakers. He got a 16(9?) in June last year and got a 179 in October. You can definitely do it!

[John_rizzy_rawls]

I posted this in the main forum already(advice on improving from low 160s to 170), I want to also get advice from people also studying for june test. I usually score in the 160-163 range. Two highest scores have been a 167 (-0 on LG, -11 on LR, and -6 on RC). Score breakdown on average is usually is LG -0 to -1, LR -11 to -14, RC -6 to -7. Any advice on raising score to 170-173 by mid-May(june registration date)? Is it even possible to do?

LR Bible (Powerscore) and Manhattan LR + Cambridge LR Bundle.

Also, Manhattan RC.

Do all those twice and you'll jump.

[Fianna13]

taking a break from studying for midterms. Seems like we have more people on board now. awesome. quick questions for those who are beasting RC, how do you guys treat the comparative passages? Do you still analyze the passage with the same process as other passages? Or do you keep in mind for additional aspects such as similarity and differences? My plan is to finish drilling RC by friday. then start full PT schedule following DD's schedule starting saturday.

[steven21]

thanks for the advice. I have all three of those (Manhattan LR, PS LR Bible, Cambridge LR)

[A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A]

I posted this in the main forum already(advice on improving from low 160s to 170), I want to also get advice from people also studying for june test. I usually score in the 160-163 range. Two highest scores have been a 167 (-0 on LG, -11 on LR, and -6 on RC). Score breakdown on average is usually is LG -0 to -1, LR -11 to -14, RC -6 to -7. Any advice on raising score to 170-173 by mid-May(june registration date)? Is it even possible to do?

Considering you already have LG down, three months gives you enough time studying the rest to have a good shot. Do a breakdown of your LR types that you usually miss and drill those. Try reading dense shit on the side instead of whatever you read for pleasure.

[Daily_Double]

PT 21.5 (Feb 97) --

Can someone go over number 20 on section 3? Why exactly is E incorrect? Thanks

PT 21.5, S3, Q20: N/A

Core: Int. Supervision is not better than R. Supervision at preventing convicts from committing more felonies.

p1: The percent of released felons arrested during Int. Supervision is equal to the percent of released felons arrested during R. Supervision

(Right after spotting the core and the main support for it, p1, I thought about the percentages and realized one N/A is the number of convicts released per supervision program must be representative, I moved to the answers, saw C and E and starred both) Then I reread the stimulus to see what the other premises do... They don't really do anything.

A: Mars is closer in scope than this

B: scope

C: Hey look that hits the core like a bus. If the proportion of arrests to crimes is higher for Int. Supervision than R. Supervision, then it would be better at preventing crimes, in terms of percentages. This is it.

D: pretty close to a S/A, definitely not N/A

E: So what if the number was significantly greater, whatever that means, this would weaken the argument if negated, but it's not a N/A. If it were phrased to where it said the number of each is good enough to be a representative sample, then it would be a N/A. But we don't know that the difference of a significant number of felons would make the results unreliable.

[Daily_Double]

Also, welcome February people. Go do fun things and don't get depressed, you'll hit your goal if you keep working at it. If anything, I'm jealous of your experience, taking the real thing, based upon what I've read, seems unpredictable, nerve-racking, and in general tougher than timed five section PTs. I think I even read one post where the proctor announced five minutes too early, good god, I'd probably pull a Liam Neeson and hunt him down. You have done it at least once, now you just have to fine tune a couple things and show off your skills. You guys got this.

[CardozoLaw09]

Thanks DD --

I was thinking along the lines of if E were negated then that would give us a reason to believe RSupervision and ISupervision were not equally effective since if there were a significantly greater number of criminals under RSupervision then that might imply greater effectiveness given that more people were deterred from committing additional crimes. But I see how C is the better answer, although E is pretty damn close.

Edit: And yes, welcome Feb retakers.. this thread is exactly what you're looking for to fuel your motivation after a less than adequate Feb score. There are a lot of driven people in this thread so hopefully you'll fit right in. Being a retaker myself, I know exactly how it feels — you can't let this test beat you though. We're gonna fuck shit up in June.

[TheRealJoshuaLyman]

Hey everyone, checking in! This is my first TLS post, but like many I have been a maaaajor lurker for about the last four months. I originally registered to take the Feb '13 LSAT and withdrew beforehand, and have been studying studying studying since taking a Powerscore class in January. Hopefully I can bring a little something to the table. I've been reading the pages of this thread for quite some time and am trying to come up with the best studying plan for weekdays. Have you all found more success focusing on one subject for a week at a time, or mixing it up with different types and practice sections throughout the week?

Thanks! Luck to all and happy studying!

[Daily_Double]

Thanks DD --

I was thinking along the lines of if E were negated then that would give us a reason to believe RSupervision and ISupervision were not equally effective since if there were a significantly greater number of criminals under RSupervision then that might imply greater effectiveness given that more people were deterred from committing additional crimes. But I see how C is the better answer, although E is pretty damn close.

It's definitely close upon first glance. What killed it for me was the term significantly different, because we're talking about percentages not numbers. Furthermore, the core is that I.Supervision is not more effective than R. Supervision. But if we look at E a little more, we can see it's not really that close at all. So looking at E, negated, says that the number of felons under R. Supervision was a lot larger than I.Supervision, but that still don't collapse the argument.

Because for example if we have 10,000 under R.Supervision and 5,000 under I.Supervision, and an equal percentage, as provided by the argument, of both were arrested again during supervision, let's say 50%, then we have 5,000 arrested again under R.Supervision and 2,500 arrested under I.Supervision. But is one more effective or less effective than the other just because one is larger? I don't think so, regardless of which program a felon is put into, based off these percentages, there's a 50% chance that felon will be arrested again. Therefore, E does not collapse the argument, and as we all know if it doesn't collapse the argument it's not a N/A.

[CardozoLaw09]

But is one more effective or less effective than the other just because one is larger? I don't think so, regardless of which program a felon is put into, based off these percentages, there's a 50% chance that felon will be arrested again.

Boom. I think that hits the nail on the head. Nice!

[ready4180]

Does anyone know of where I can find an explanation for PT21-S1-G3? I tried looking on 7Sage, couldn't find it. Questions 13 and 16 are giving me grief, and I want to know the best ways to attack these questions! Thanks

[griffin.811]

Does anyone know of where I can find an explanation for PT21-S1-G3? I tried looking on 7Sage, couldn't find it. Questions 13 and 16 are giving me grief, and I want to know the best ways to attack these questions! Thanks

http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat ... -1-game-3/

[wtrc]

Welcome, Feb retakers! It's fun here.

[MS415]

I just took the feb lsat and got a 152 after PTing at 162-168. I really dont know what happened. I will retake this June.

[chuckbass]

I just took the feb lsat and got a 152 after PTing at 162-168. I really dont know what happened. I will retake this June.

I feel your pain. Got a 159 after PTing 168-173. Clearly we have the ability, now we just have to make this more consistent.

[MS415]

I just took the feb lsat and got a 152 after PTing at 162-168. I really dont know what happened. I will retake this June.

I feel your pain. Got a 159 after PTing 168-173. Clearly we have the ability, now we just have to make this more consistent.

Yea man, It's actually pissing me off how I scored so low. I was expecting 157 to be my lowest. I will study like crazy for June--keeping on an eye on consistency. I will hold nothing back.

[Daily_Double]

I will hold nothing back.

This.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

Page 100.