JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread Forum

[wtrc]

PT 52

LR1: -1 (#16)
LG: -2 (#3, 17)
LR2: -3 (16,17,25)
RC: 0

93/99 raw, 174 scaled

Have not yet reviewed, but I'm actually really confused. The LG must have been careless errors, and this hasn't happened in a while. Yet my best RC ever before this was -4, so I'm so pumped by the RC. I think I did this PT like a year and a half ago, so not sure how accurate the score is.

Good job weather! I keep missing a couple on LG, careless errors as well. I'd die to go -0 on RC, I don't think I've ever went less than -2.

The things I would do to go -0 on RC on June 10, 2013... It's bad. And awesome work weathercoins.

Haha, thanks guys. Yeah, same with me about the -0 on RC. This feels nice but really not getting my hopes up.

[CardozoLaw09]

On break from PT53 after going straight through first three sections. LG went well, less certain about my LR performance.. some questions were pretty tough!

[alpha kenny body]

So far I've taken 4 preptests and my last one (32) was a 163. Between reviewing and taking more preptests, what should I do? If I can get my RC down to single digits, I will have no problem getting into the 170s. My LR is getting real tight and LG is getting better with more practice.

[ColeWorldNoBlanket]

**Sneaks into thread with first post**

Just took my first PT...got a 167

PT 21:

LG (-11)
LR1 (-2)
LR2 (-3)
RC (-2)

[alpha kenny body]

**Sneaks into thread with first post**

Just took my first PT...got a 167

PT 21:

LG (-11)
LR1 (-2)
LR2 (-3)
RC (-2)

You're gonna be straight bro, LG is one of the easiest sections to improve on as well as score perfectly.

[bdeans91]

Shit you guys. I was planning on drilling a full RC section today in one sitting, but PT 21 Sec IV Passage 1 killed me.

Took 12-13 minutes and I got 4/8.

I -1'd my last RC section as well. I fucking didn't get this passage guys.

Edit: did the other 3 passages so efficiently that I still finished in time and finished with a -4 (as implied, I was perfect on the following 3 sections)... what an annoyance.

[objection_your_honor]

PT 52

LR: -4
LG: -0
LR: -1
RC: -0

94 / 176

Of the 5 I missed, 3 were absolute blind guesses because of timing. I need to drill the F out of assumption family LR this week to put some time in the bank. Working on set-in-stone metrics (like 15 questions in 15 minutes) should also help. LG and RC are easier for me to pace because there are 4 big blocks.

Warmed up doing an RC passage and looking over a few past LR sections I've completed. I generally have a hard time handling the first section of a PT no matter what it is.

[CardozoLaw09]

On break from PT53 after going straight through first three sections. LG went well, less certain about my LR performance.. some questions were pretty tough!

I can only laugh at how bad I did on the second RC passage; worst ever.. don't know what happened. If it weren't for that catastrophe I would have been pretty pleased with the overall result.

53

LR -4
LG -1
LR -4
RC.........wait for it....... -11

RC can go fuck itself

[Fianna13]

things I would do for -1 for LG...

[homie1515]

things I would do for -1 for LG...

study??

[eliztudorr]

i HATE it when there's DOUBLE NEGATIVES in answer choices.......

[eliztudorr]

On break from PT53 after going straight through first three sections. LG went well, less certain about my LR performance.. some questions were pretty tough!

I can only laugh at how bad I did on the second RC passage; worst ever.. don't know what happened. If it weren't for that catastrophe I would have been pretty pleased with the overall result.

53

LR -4
LG -1
LR -4
RC.........wait for it....... -11

RC can go fuck itself

i second your suggestion that RC should go F itself.... i missed -12 so we are on similar boats...i keep misreading shit with double negatives....

[crazyrobin]

i second your suggestion that RC should go F itself.... i missed -12 so we are on similar boats...i keep misreading shit with double negatives....

I feel your pain.

No person cannot win the game. <------------ I believe LSAT is worse than this.
LOL anyway, I managed to understand it with diagram. So you may want to try it, you know, just in case it may help.

[eliztudorr]

i second your suggestion that RC should go F itself.... i missed -12 so we are on similar boats...i keep misreading shit with double negatives....

I feel your pain.

No person cannot win the game. <------------ I believe LSAT is worse than this.
LOL anyway, I managed to understand it with diagram. So you may want to try it, you know, just in case it may help.

diagram? like the passage? can you give me an example? would really appreciate it ><" im feeling desperate. and honestly your "no person cannot win the game" already made my mind go blank =.= this is like mix signals to me lol like do you like me or do you like me not. JUST SAY IT.

[crazyrobin]

diagram? like the passage? can you give me an example? would really appreciate it ><" im feeling desperate. and honestly your "no person cannot win the game" already made my mind go blank =.= this is like mix signals to me lol like do you like me or do you like me not. JUST SAY IT.

Sure, check PT24, S2, Q21
What I did is draw a box, inside is effective law. Then beside the box is another box inside is enforceable.
So this answer tells us that effective law and enforceable is overlapped right?
Then I just interpret it as effective law is enforceable.

After couple times, I can do it in my mind. Hope this helps.

[eliztudorr]

diagram? like the passage? can you give me an example? would really appreciate it ><" im feeling desperate. and honestly your "no person cannot win the game" already made my mind go blank =.= this is like mix signals to me lol like do you like me or do you like me not. JUST SAY IT.

Sure, check PT24, S2, Q21
What I did is draw a box, inside is effective law. Then beside the box is another box inside is enforceable.
So this answer tells us that effective law and enforceable is overlapped right?
Then I just interpret it as effective law is enforceable.

After couple times, I can do it in my mind. Hope this helps.

interesting. i will try that. thanks!!!

[crazyrobin]

interesting. i will try that. thanks!!!

One suggestion and it's down to heart: drill, drill, drill, drill the shit out of LR, it pays!

[eliztudorr]

interesting. i will try that. thanks!!!

One suggestion and it's down to heart: drill, drill, drill, drill the shit out of LR, it pays!

thanks!!! im doing everything i can!

[Daily_Double]

Check out PT 52, LR1, #16, for a great example of how the credited answer to parallel flaw questions doesn't necessarily have to replicate every element of the stimulus.

[eliztudorr]

Check out PT 52, LR1, #16, for a great example of how the credited answer to parallel flaw questions doesn't necessarily have to replicate every element of the stimulus.

i remember this one. this one is the relation between belief and something being true or not.

[Daily_Double]

Check out PT 52, LR1, #16, for a great example of how the credited answer to parallel flaw questions doesn't necessarily have to replicate every element of the stimulus.

i remember this one. this one is the relation between belief and something being true or not.

Yeah you're correct. If I remember correctly, it went something along the lies of:

Belief in A ---> Belief in B
~B
Therefore: Belief in A is false

[CardozoLaw09]

Check out PT 52, LR1, #16, for a great example of how the credited answer to parallel flaw questions doesn't necessarily have to replicate every element of the stimulus.

i remember this one. this one is the relation between belief and something being true or not.

Yeah you're correct. If I remember correctly, it went something along the lies of:

Belief in A ---> Belief in B
~B
Therefore: Belief in A is false

Edited:
The question being: does conclusively proving that B doesn't exist necessarily entail that your belief in the thing that assured your belief in B is false? I don't think so LSAC

[rebexness]

Took my "first" timed PT. Am a little mad. Managed to do extremely well on logic games, but blew LR hard (more wrong in each section than I normally go (on actual LSAT) in both LR combined. JFC.

At least my LG work paid off. -3, 2 of which was on a game that I thought I misread a rule on.

I finished every section with 5+ to spare, so I am going to work on slowing down as well.

Back to LR drilling, I guess. I will review this test tonight and take a different PT tomorrow. Perhaps my brain just checked out.

ETA: My raw score went up significantly, so I will take that as a plus. June 2007 test, SMD.

[CardozoLaw09]

Could have EASILY gone -1 on the second LR section of PT53 if it weren't for careless reading errors.

[Daily_Double]

Could have EASILY gone -1 on the second LR section of PT53 if it weren't for careless reading errors.

Keep up the good work, we'll both go -0 on LR come game day.