JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread Forum

[Daily_Double]

.

[crazyrobin]

Still an accomplishment. I'd be jealous, except that I still have five more months to "get right" with logic games. The accuracy is there, but it's taking me 9-10 minutes on some games. Others are taking me less time, but I don't want to rely on getting four "quick" games on test day. LR and RC are on the back burner for right now, since I usually go -2 or -3 on a section, with about ten minutes left. I'll hit them hard at some point, but I really want to see more improvement in LG first.

I'd punt a porcupine barefoot to go -2/-3 on LR and RC with ten minutes left each section. Not that they're giving me a ton of trouble, but 10 minutes... Damn. I just timed it, that's enough time for me to sharpen, break, resharpen and rebreak a new black Ticonderoga pencil at least ten times. I wouldn't do this with your extra ten minutes though, unless you want the outside of your test center to literally become a danger zone.

I think we are on the same boat..... Some LR and RC give me a heart attack

[crazyrobin]

So it would seem to me that the best way to drill RC would be to just do timed sections from PT 1-38, then writing out explanations for incorrect answers and ones I'm not sure on, then understanding those explanations before moving on, maybe with a little MRC review mixed in. I post this because LR and LG can be easily broken down by question type and drilled, however, it seems to me that RC is not nearly as intricate, and consequently not as easy to drill.

So if anyone has any other suggestions for drilling RC, I would be interested to hear them.

And about this, time every RC section from 1-38, are you sure this is a good idea?

I mean I tried to time myself on about 8 PTs, I made negligible effort, but then I tried voyager's approach untimed, I did significantly well.

I am thinking about practice with timed PT from 20-38. 1-20 I'll just drill and try to hone my skill. Any thought?

[Typhoon24]

So it would seem to me that the best way to drill RC would be to just do timed sections from PT 1-38, then writing out explanations for incorrect answers and ones I'm not sure on, then understanding those explanations before moving on, maybe with a little MRC review mixed in. I post this because LR and LG can be easily broken down by question type and drilled, however, it seems to me that RC is not nearly as intricate, and consequently not as easy to drill.

So if anyone has any other suggestions for drilling RC, I would be interested to hear them.

And about this, time every RC section from 1-38, are you sure this is a good idea?

I mean I tried to time myself on about 8 PTs, I made negligible effort, but then I tried voyager's approach untimed, I did significantly well.

I am thinking about practice with timed PT from 20-38. 1-20 I'll just drill and try to hone my skill. Any thought?

I like your suggestion better. Accuracy, then speed. Focus on developing a good strategy for taking down each RC/LR section first, then worry about timing. Drilling the first 20 PTs untimed** should do the trick.

[TheMostDangerousLG]

Still an accomplishment. I'd be jealous, except that I still have five more months to "get right" with logic games. The accuracy is there, but it's taking me 9-10 minutes on some games. Others are taking me less time, but I don't want to rely on getting four "quick" games on test day. LR and RC are on the back burner for right now, since I usually go -2 or -3 on a section, with about ten minutes left. I'll hit them hard at some point, but I really want to see more improvement in LG first.

I'd punt a porcupine barefoot to go -2/-3 on LR and RC with ten minutes left each section. Not that they're giving me a ton of trouble, but 10 minutes... Damn. I just timed it, that's enough time for me to sharpen, break, resharpen and rebreak a new black Ticonderoga pencil at least ten times. I wouldn't do this with your extra ten minutes though, unless you want the outside of your test center to literally become a danger zone.

I would stab a baby in the face with a black Mirado Warrior to go -2 on RC with ten minutes left.

I hope this doesn't require a C&F addendum.

[Daily_Double]

.

[Daily_Double]

.

[ScottRiqui]

So it would seem to me that the best way to drill RC would be to just do timed sections from PT 1-38, then writing out explanations for incorrect answers and ones I'm not sure on, then understanding those explanations before moving on, maybe with a little MRC review mixed in. I post this because LR and LG can be easily broken down by question type and drilled, however, it seems to me that RC is not nearly as intricate, and consequently not as easy to drill.

So if anyone has any other suggestions for drilling RC, I would be interested to hear them.

And about this, time every RC section from 1-38, are you sure this is a good idea?

I mean I tried to time myself on about 8 PTs, I made negligible effort, but then I tried voyager's approach untimed, I did significantly well.

I am thinking about practice with timed PT from 20-38. 1-20 I'll just drill and try to hone my skill. Any thought?

I like your suggestion better. Accuracy, then speed. Focus on developing a good strategy for taking down each RC/LR section first, then worry about timing. Drilling the first 20 PTs I timed should do the trick.

Something that was drilled into me in the Navy, both for operating nuclear reactors and again in flight school, was "Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast."

It's along the same lines as "Practice doesn't make perfect - PERFECT practice makes perfect". If you can't do it right with all the time in the world, trying to beat the clock isn't going to make you any better.

ETA - That's not to say that there's anything wrong with timing yourself a few times to see where you're at. I just wouldn't make time a factor while you're still working on your technique.

[Daily_Double]

[.

[Daily_Double]

.

[CanILive]

My first timed preptest will be tomorrow...

Nervous

Let Down for You /Great News for Me:

I know you were all eagerly anticipating my PT score to see how far I have to go improvement wise to get that 180.

I got a call about a job interview today and have taken the day off to buy a new suit and enjoy the National Championship game.

I will PT tomorrow and continue the march to a 180.

[wtrc]

Thoughts on how useful/accurate redoing PT's is? Spread out over about 4 months (so, for example, taking one in Jan and the same one again in April/May). I don't think I remember specific answers consciously, but still not sure how much to trust scores.

I studied in 2011 for the LSAT (took June), so I'm not too worried about redoing PT's I used then as much as redoing PT's in the same cycle/for the same test.

[objection_your_honor]

Thoughts on how useful/accurate redoing PT's is? Spread out over about 4 months (so, for example, taking one in Jan and the same one again in April/May). I don't think I remember specific answers consciously, but still not sure how much to trust scores.

I studied in 2011 for the LSAT (took June), so I'm not too worried about redoing PT's I used then as much as redoing PT's in the same cycle/for the same test.

It won't necessarily be a great diagnostic for your score, but it will be very useful in seeing persistent problems. Compare the old take with the new; chances are you've missed some of the same questions.

I'll be doing this as well since I studied last year and have my old tests/lsatqa account.

[myoung7189]

Something i found to be extremely helpful from the MLRB for inference questions was to eliminate the ACsthat are obviously wrong and then figure out which AC is most plausible. Whenever i start looking at the answer choices relative to the other answer choices instead of comparing each to the argument, almost always get the question wrong. For me, thinking outside of the parameters of the argument is what im fighting the most. How about you?

The most difficult thing for me in LR has been carefully reading the stim. For example, I missed question 24 in section 1 on pt 20 today because I skipped over the word "total" which happened to be critical to the argument and the answer. I'm not even timing myself yet, and I am still finding difficulty absorbing and holding on to the entire thrust of the argument. Hopefully, this comes with time.

[lsatkid007]

I guess I will joining you guys. So far for the last 2 months I have been working on RC. Really haven't looked much at the LR & LG. Didn't do much reading in UG so that's kicking my ass right now. I'm going to use PT 1-40 for drilling and going to do timed PT 40 and up.

Good Luck!!!

[shieldofachilles]

Something i found to be extremely helpful from the MLRB for inference questions was to eliminate the ACsthat are obviously wrong and then figure out which AC is most plausible. Whenever i start looking at the answer choices relative to the other answer choices instead of comparing each to the argument, almost always get the question wrong. For me, thinking outside of the parameters of the argument is what im fighting the most. How about you?

The most difficult thing for me in LR has been carefully reading the stim. For example, I missed question 24 in section 1 on pt 20 today because I skipped over the word "total" which happened to be critical to the argument and the answer. I'm not even timing myself yet, and I am still finding difficulty absorbing and holding on to the entire thrust of the argument. Hopefully, this comes with time.

I think Manhattan makes a good point about the whole detail issue. From the little lsat knowledge i have, modifiers seem to be ridiculously important in LR: some, many, none, must, most, blah blah. Once i started actively looking out for those words the harder questions became a lot easier such as parallel questions, i.e. if there's an absolute modifier in the conclusion of the stimulus like "all grey dogs must bark at mike," then an incorrect answer might throw in something along the lines of "some types of LR questions are probably not understandable." notice how some and probably are very different ideas compared to all and must. Once you start noticing these big shifts in scope and degree things start opening up a bit. Hope that helps.

I've been completely out of commission with the flu for the past two days but got to do some veryyy light drilling today lol. Not a total loss but the last two days have been so unproductive. Anyway, good luck with everything.

[crazyrobin]

I did 12 Basic Linear - Balanced Games today.
PT 07 Game #1 4:15 -0
PT 12 Game #1 4:53 -0
PT 13 Game #2 4:52 -1
PT 15 Game #1 6:31 -0
PT 18 Game #2 6:38 -1
Then took 10 min break, doing five games in a roll is exhausting.....
PT 19 Game #1 4:44 -0
PT 23 Game #1 4:50 -1
PT 24 Game #2 6:12 -1
PT 26 Game #2 5:14 -0
PT 27 Game #1 6:50 -0
PT 27 Game #4 5:36 -0
7 games in a roll really kills me....
I still can't guarantee -0, figure out a way to cut down the inadvertent error.

[Daily_Double]

.

[CardozoLaw09]

Manhattan's In and Out approach (logic chain) or this? This is the only game type that I have yet to find a "go-to" diagram and I just read up on LSAT blogs method but have yet to try it out on actual games. What do you guys think?

[Daily_Double]

.

[crazyrobin]

Manhattan's In and Out approach (logic chain) or this? This is the only game type that I have yet to find a "go-to" diagram and I just read up on LSAT blogs method but have yet to try it out on actual games. What do you guys think?

I can't speak for Manhattan because I haven't read Manhattan LG book yet, but LSAT Blog's method works for me. Every time I have a conditional group in/out game, I did this way, and it works like a charm.

[chadbrochill]

Thoughts on how useful/accurate redoing PT's is? Spread out over about 4 months (so, for example, taking one in Jan and the same one again in April/May). I don't think I remember specific answers consciously, but still not sure how much to trust scores.

I studied in 2011 for the LSAT (took June), so I'm not too worried about redoing PT's I used then as much as redoing PT's in the same cycle/for the same test.

Hey guys, just chiming in real quick. I'd like to do a larger post once I get my app stuff handled.

You absolutely can use retakes to improve your score. I would only plan to do a PT once, but come back later if you found one difficult. PT60 was incredibly difficult for me, and because of that, it was ripe for repeat takes.

One thing I suggest everyone do is take note of what PT's are being used extensively in their study materials. Whether it be Powerscore, Manhattan, or Velocity, they will try to draw their questions from a narrow range of PT's. Preserve the others (your preciouses) and know that these will be a closer indication of how you would do when faced with novel material. Keep this all in a spreadsheet so you know what you are working with at all times (I used color coding to indicate familiarity with a PT).

How much retaking inflates your score is hard to tell because it is directly tied to how well you reviewed your results the first time. If you see yourself remembering certain aspects, still do the problem out according to your usual attack methods. Sometimes you'll be biased towards the right answer, sometimes you'll be biased towards an answer you got wrong last time. It can go either way so stay on your guard.

You would think retaking a PT you've already seen is some exercise in boredom, but you should really see this as an opportunity. You have a slight boost, so you have no excuse not to gun for 180. Expect that of yourself, get mad when that section ends up as -2, thats not allowed on retakes. Take the time to appreciate the subtle nuances that save a section, like not allowing yourself to sink 4 minutes into a detail question on RC, or moving on from an LR that just isn't clicking but you know you'll have time for a second pass. Learn that finishing 15 LR questions in 20 minutes is a bit behind and you need to slightly pick up the pace. These little skills and standards you set will translate to the less-familiar PT's, and eventually onto your new test trust me.

[ScottRiqui]

I did 12 Basic Linear - Balanced Games today.
PT 07 Game #1 4:15 -0
PT 12 Game #1 4:53 -0
PT 13 Game #2 4:52 -1
PT 15 Game #1 6:31 -0
PT 18 Game #2 6:38 -1
Then took 10 min break, doing five games in a roll is exhausting.....
PT 19 Game #1 4:44 -0
PT 23 Game #1 4:50 -1
PT 24 Game #2 6:12 -1
PT 26 Game #2 5:14 -0
PT 27 Game #1 6:50 -0
PT 27 Game #4 5:36 -0
7 games in a roll really kills me....
I still can't guarantee -0, figure out a way to cut down the inadvertent error.

I will not be jealous...I will not be jealous...

Kind of hard, though, when I just went 12:00 and 13:00 on a pair of multi-row ordering games. Of course, I just did one in 7:30, which counts as a "good" time for me so far.

Oh well, back at it!

[CardozoLaw09]

Thoughts on how useful/accurate redoing PT's is? Spread out over about 4 months (so, for example, taking one in Jan and the same one again in April/May). I don't think I remember specific answers consciously, but still not sure how much to trust scores.

I studied in 2011 for the LSAT (took June), so I'm not too worried about redoing PT's I used then as much as redoing PT's in the same cycle/for the same test.

Hey guys, just chiming in real quick. I'd like to do a larger post once I get my app stuff handled.

You absolutely can use retakes to improve your score. I would only plan to do a PT once, but come back later if you found one difficult. PT60 was incredibly difficult for me, and because of that, it was ripe for repeat takes.

One thing I suggest everyone do is take note of what PT's are being used extensively in their study materials. Whether it be Powerscore, Manhattan, or Velocity, they will try to draw their questions from a narrow range of PT's. Preserve the others (your preciouses) and know that these will be a closer indication of how you would do when faced with novel material. Keep this all in a spreadsheet so you know what you are working with at all times (I used color coding to indicate familiarity with a PT).

How much retaking inflates your score is hard to tell because it is directly tied to how well you reviewed your results the first time. If you see yourself remembering certain aspects, still do the problem out according to your usual attack methods. Sometimes you'll be biased towards the right answer, sometimes you'll be biased towards an answer you got wrong last time. It can go either way so stay on your guard.

You would think retaking a PT you've already seen is some exercise in boredom, but you should really see this as an opportunity. You have a slight boost, so you have no excuse not to gun for 180. Expect that of yourself, get mad when that section ends up as -2, thats not allowed on retakes. Take the time to appreciate the subtle nuances that save a section, like not allowing yourself to sink 4 minutes into a detail question on RC, or moving on from an LR that just isn't clicking but you know you'll have time for a second pass. Learn that finishing 15 LR questions in 20 minutes is a bit behind and you need to slightly pick up the pace. These little skills and standards you set will translate to the less-familiar PT's, and eventually onto your new test trust me.

Awesome post and I think something a lot of us retakers are concerned about. Thanks!

[nugnoy]

Thoughts on how useful/accurate redoing PT's is? Spread out over about 4 months (so, for example, taking one in Jan and the same one again in April/May). I don't think I remember specific answers consciously, but still not sure how much to trust scores.

I studied in 2011 for the LSAT (took June), so I'm not too worried about redoing PT's I used then as much as redoing PT's in the same cycle/for the same test.

Because we only have a limited number of tests, I think a person who wants to maximize their chances for the highest score SHOULD re-take PTs if they can afford the time. As June takers, some of us may.

But I agree, when I recognize a question I've reviewed, I pretty much immediately remember the critical piece of information that leads me to the right answer. So I don't trust it as as measure of "how well I'd do facing a new LSAT under the same time conditions."

But, I think redoing a PT may be a good measure on the following:
1. Do I remember everything I've reviewed? Have I forgotten some things (which I realized happens a lot, especially when I'm studying 6+ hours a day)?
2. When I recognize a specific situation that I've studied before, can I solve the question accurately and quickly?
3. Have I noticed things that I've missed in my first review?

To test 1&3, I would redo a PT untimed, recording all of my thoughts comprehensively. Then, I'd compare it to my first review and see if there's any difference. For me, I've found that I do sometimes forget to take into account something I've highlighted before. Also, a lot of the times I've noticed that I realize new things that I didn't realize before, even though I thought I covered something comprehensively. This always feels nice, since it shows I have improved.

To test 2, I would redo a PT timed, but give myself much less time - maybe 25~30 minutes? This way, I practice thinking faster.

So I agree redoing PT is not as useful as a diagnostic, like you and others said. But I think they're useful for these other purposes that would help secure the maximum score a person can expect.

After taking some PTs, I've decided to hit the books. When I return to PT mode, this is how I might take re-doing PT into my prep. If I have the time that is -. -; Maybe just re-take the most recent ones haha.