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 wrote: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.rebexness wrote: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.A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A wrote:Is everyone doing the DD schedule?
ETA: Have LRB and MLR. Which one first?
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.
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.
JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread Forum
-
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:04 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
- BlaqBella
- Posts: 868
- Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:41 am
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
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.ready4180 wrote: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 wrote: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.rebexness wrote: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.A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A wrote:Is everyone doing the DD schedule?
ETA: Have LRB and MLR. Which one first?
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.
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.
I prefer Powerscore's/Steve Schwartz (LSAT blog) approach for these game types.
- wtrc
- Posts: 2053
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 9:37 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
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.
-
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:04 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
[/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.
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.
-
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:45 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
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
Here is an example
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- BlaqBella
- Posts: 868
- Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:41 am
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
+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.Daily_Double wrote: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
- Posts: 868
- Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:41 am
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
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
ETA: Hopefully it will be in time for Thursday's review
-
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:30 am
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
Well that solves the TC issue!
- objection_your_honor
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:19 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
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.
I'm also writing out argument cores at random.
-
- Posts: 4155
- Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:24 am
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
Last edited by rebexness on Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- CardozoLaw09
- Posts: 2232
- Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:58 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
Cool, sounds good.BlaqBella wrote: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
-
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:45 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
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
PT 40, LR and LG
LR1: -1, #23, extra time
LG: -0, extra time
LR2: -2, #23, #26, buzzer-beater
-
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:04 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
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?Daily_Double wrote: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.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- RhymesLikeDimes
- Posts: 403
- Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:58 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
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.objection_your_honor wrote:About 100 questions into drilling assumption questions and they all seem pretty uncomplicated. Drilling by type is so key.
- CardozoLaw09
- Posts: 2232
- Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:58 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
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.evolution wrote: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?Daily_Double wrote: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.
Last edited by CardozoLaw09 on Tue Feb 05, 2013 8:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:45 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
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.evolution wrote: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?Daily_Double wrote: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.
- wtrc
- Posts: 2053
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 9:37 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
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).evolution wrote: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?Daily_Double wrote: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 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.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 592
- Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:32 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
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.Daily_Double wrote: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.evolution wrote: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?Daily_Double wrote: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.
-
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:30 am
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:45 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
Definitely not everything, but it definitively contains the four passages from PT 40.A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A wrote: 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.
-
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:45 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
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.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- John_rizzy_rawls
- Posts: 3468
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:44 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
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.
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
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:29 am
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
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
- Posts: 2232
- Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:58 pm
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
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.
-
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 12:25 am
Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread
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.CardozoLaw09 wrote: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.
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.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login