JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread Forum

[sl5uw13]

PT 68 (Dec 12) 180!!!!!! Come at me June!

RC: -2
LR1: -0
LR2: -0
LG: -0

I know you.

Congrats, by the way. Hope for a generous curve (for a 180 )

Yo ain't that right haha. But aren't -2 for a 180 more typical than a -1?

[Uncle Ruslan]

I'm finding that, at least in the newer generation of tests, my LR2 is usually weaker than LR1. Does anyone find that the 2nd goaround contains harder questions, or should I see this as more of an endurance issue? My stats across all sections don't indicate any endurance problems, but it could by LR-specific burnout I guess.

[Daily_Double]

I'm finding that, at least in the newer generation of tests, my LR2 is usually weaker than LR1. Does anyone find that the 2nd goaround contains harder questions, or should I see this as more of an endurance issue? My stats across all sections don't indicate any endurance problems, but it could by LR-specific burnout I guess.

Not me. If I miss anything in LR usually it's in the first section. So I would guess endurance might be a factor. However, keep in mind there's usually only about four tricky LR questions per section, maybe less, at least in my opinion, and you may just draw one of these tricky questions in a question type you're weak at. So it could be a number of factors, not just endurance.

[Uncle Ruslan]

Not me. If I miss anything in LR usually it's in the first section. So I would guess endurance might be a factor. However, keep in mind there's usually only about four tricky LR questions per section, maybe less, at least in my opinion, and you may just draw one of these tricky questions in a question type you're weak at. So it could be a number of factors, not just endurance.

Thanks - I figured that's the case as it's only showed up in a few tests that all happened to be newer.


On a tangent - has anyone read if the non-hypothetical, non-persuasive information in LR questions is true? As in scientific studies, purported facts, etc? I keep remembering nuggets of information from questions when stuff comes up in conversations (like how studies show cigarette smokers have better short term memory for a certain number of hours after smoking, from the top of my head). Is it generally ok to assume this stuff is valid?

[SteelPenguin]

Hey everyone, can someone helpt me with a question from PT8? It's the one from LR1-Q18. I realize my answer (C) was wrong because of the word "accuracy," but I don't see what the implicit assumption is that is mentioned in E. I feel like this is something simple that I am missing, but I can't figure it out.

PT 8, S1, Q18: Method of Argument

So here we are looking at what method Smith uses to reply to Jones. Let's take a look at Jones argument:

Jones' Conclusion: It can't be correct that these 13k year old tools belonged to people whose parents first crossed into the Americas from elsewhere.

Why?

Because, according to Jones, they would have had to start migrating before 13k years ago and no tools have been found elsewhere before 13k.

Alright, so we can immediately see the errors in Jones' argument. He has geographic issues. So he concludes that since the travelers must have had to be traveling before 13k, and since they're aren't any tools along the route they traveled, that they didn't belong to the travelers. Do you see the issue here? He takes a lack of evidence to mean the non-existence of evidence. Meaning that, since we haven't found any tools along the path they traveled, they didn't have these tools during their quest.

To use an example to point out the flaw here, and assuming you've seen, or read I guess, any of the Lord of the Rings books/movies, just because we can't find evidence of Frodo carrying the ring of power across Middle Earth doesn't mean that he didn't. What if it was dropped into a flaming volcano and that's why we can't find evidence of it?

So now let's look at Smith's counterargument:

Here we go. Smith claims one reason that could account for the discrepancy, the discrepancy being that the tools were found in South America but not along the way to South America, is that the tools decomposed along the way to the Americas, and because of the uniqueness of American soil, some of them were preserved here. What Smith really does here is attack the assumption in Jones' argument that because we don't have evidence of the existence of the tools along the way to the Americas, they were not carried to the Americas by the travelers.

Let's see if we can find the right answer by process of elimination in addition to our prephrase though:

A: Nope, Smith doesn't mention any studies.

B: Nope. Smith doesn't claim that Jones builds a straw man argument, rather, Smith claims that Jones' conclusion is overstepping his premises.

C: Also no. Smith doesn't take issue with the premises in Jones' argument, instead Smith is claiming here that Jones' conclusion goes too far based upon his premises.

D: Way off.

E: Yes. Smith is claiming that just because we can't find the tools doesn't mean that they were not carried. And he supports this by introducing facts which would account for the disappearance of the tools along the way to the Americas.

Thank you for taking the time to reply, it was very helpful. Looking at it now, I'm not sure why that threw me off so much. I think that once I had trouble with it, every time I would return to review it my brain kinda freaked out and shut down since I was stumped the first two times.

[jmjm]

Is doing timed PT sections separately not a good indicator of real score? Can the filled mark in answer-sheet go out of circle space a bit or only about three-fourth filled?
Still making many mistakes in LR, 50% of the test. Interestingly, got q16 wrong in all lr and rc.

PT-52:
(sections lr-1, lg, lr-2 consecutively done today)
LR1 -4 (wrong 16, 19, 23, 24)
LG -1
LR2 -4 (wrong 7, 16, 19, 23)
RC -1 (taken separately, wrong 16)

-10

[westjr]

PT 68 (Dec 12) 180!!!!!! Come at me June!

RC: -2
LR1: -0
LR2: -0
LG: -0

Nice job. Just hit my first ever 180, and what a sweet, sweet victory.

PT 61, 180

LG: -1
RC: -0
LR 1: -1
LR 2: -0

[westjr]

Is doing timed PT sections separately not a good indicator of real score? Can the filled mark in answer-sheet go out of circle space a bit or only about three-fourth filled?
Still making many mistakes in LR, 50% of the test. Interestingly, got q16 wrong in all lr and rc.

PT-52:
(sections lr-1, lg, lr-2 consecutively done today)
LR1 -4 (wrong 16, 19, 23, 24)
LG -1
LR2 -4 (wrong 7, 16, 19, 23)
RC -1 (done earlier, wrong 16)

-10

I find that I do worse when I take it in individual sections. I think that doing more than one section at a time is beneficial. Endurance is important for sure, but if you've got that, then consecutive sections help get you into the groove.

[Ambitious1]

PT 63: 91/101 for a 170

LR1: -1
LG: -0
LR2: -0
RC: -9

Second time I've cleared 170 ever, in as many days, and I'm very happy about it don't get me wrong but my poor performances in RC really makes me depressed and gives me anxiety. Almost every time I review RC I say "aha! can't believe I fell for that!" and only end up fucking up again.

The one positive I could take away from this is it's my 3rd LR in 4 tries in getting -0, something I hadn't done ever in the 6 months of previous prep.

Nonetheless, I could use some purp right now.

Seriously though, how do you guys get through RC? Are you all just naturally gifted speed readers or do you utilize the "write a short sentence after each paragraph" approach? I'll probably drill RC all day tomorrow and the next day and try to work with different methods, surely I can find one that can take me past the -6 to -9 I usually get

[objection_your_honor]

Did PT 48 today. Missed an RC question. Ready to get this shit over with.

[wtrc]

Did PT 48 today. Missed an RC question. Ready to get this shit over with.

[Daily_Double]

It'll be weird being done. What the hell am I going to do with the mountain of papers in my room?

[wtrc]

It'll be weird being done. What the hell am I going to do with the mountain of papers in my room?

So many papers. And binders. And books. TLS bonfire?

[Daily_Double]

It'll be weird being done. What the hell am I going to do with the mountain of papers in my room?

So many papers. And binders. And books. TLS bonfire?

I don't think we could put it out. It'd be like west Texas, but worse.

[NoWorries]

Can the filled mark in answer-sheet go out of circle space a bit or only about three-fourth filled?

I wonder if we can slightly erase/correct answer choices after we are done with the section. Is this allowed or do we need to make sure our bubbles are perfect before time is called?

[jmjm]

LR1: -1
LG: -0
LR2: -0
RC: -9
Seriously though, how do you guys get through RC? Are you all just naturally gifted speed readers or do you utilize the "write a short sentence after each paragraph" approach? I'll probably drill RC all day tomorrow and the next day and try to work with different methods, surely I can find one that can take me past the -6 to -9 I usually get

Excellent performance in the rest of the lsat, congrats. I'm still inconsistent in RC (-5 to -1) but I don't do any markings whatsoever in RC and take about 4 minutes to read each passage. I usually finish a few seconds before 35 mins. I am amazed that there are people here who score consistently near perfect scores in PTs and who finish RC about 5 minutes early, both of which I consider to be difficult to do things.

[isuperserial]

It'll be weird being done. What the hell am I going to do with the mountain of papers in my room?

So many papers. And binders. And books. TLS bonfire?

I'm going to sneak into the paranormal club at my university and paste it on the walls like wallpaper. They will lose their minds.

"These diagrams... WHAT DO THEY MEAN?"

[jmjm]

Are there any AC elimination approaches to identify the TCR between two competing choices in LR?
PS categories of strengthen, weaken, must be true etc are very obvious and I mentally cast the question into one of these and look at all ACs to find TCR. But, I don't apply any elimination tricks, if any, to go faster or be more precise.

If I drill LR from books then the undesirable side-effect is that I'd be exposed to recent lsat questions before taking PTs.

[wtrc]

Reviewing a PT and realizing you got a "main point of passage" question on RC wrong is not a good feeling.

[Ixiion]

Can the filled mark in answer-sheet go out of circle space a bit or only about three-fourth filled?

I wonder if we can slightly erase/correct answer choices after we are done with the section. Is this allowed or do we need to make sure our bubbles are perfect before time is called?

Sadly I watched a proctoring vid and they explicitly say you are not allowed to touch the bubbles in the earlier sections. Now, how they would actively enforce that, I don't know.

[Daily_Double]

Can the filled mark in answer-sheet go out of circle space a bit or only about three-fourth filled?

I wonder if we can slightly erase/correct answer choices after we are done with the section. Is this allowed or do we need to make sure our bubbles are perfect before time is called?

Sadly I watched a proctoring vid and they explicitly say you are not allowed to touch the bubbles in the earlier sections. Now, how they would actively enforce that, I don't know.

Remember that RC passage about the utility theory of punishment? The view consolidated two ostensibly opposing theories and basically said that people weigh their unlawful actions based upon the difference of the expected utility of being caught and punished and the expected utility of succeeding. I think it's a pretty good way to look at this scenario. The costs just don't outweigh the benefits of breaking LSACs rules.

[SteelPenguin]

I've had terrible results lately by taking individual sections. For example, I got a -5 on pt 52 RC, and then I looked up the curve and saw it was a - 10. Then I did the LG to see if it was an easier test elsewhere and ended up with a -2. That puts me at a -7, and now I'm wondering if I would have cracked a 170 or not.

During the LG one of the two I got wrong was because I completely misread a conditional statement again. Instead of N > O, I put N > T. I have no idea why, other than that I'm still testing in a darker area than I'd like. I'm having a terrible practice day.

[Ambitious1]

Excellent performance in the rest of the lsat, congrats. I'm still inconsistent in RC (-5 to -1) but I don't do any markings whatsoever in RC and take about 4 minutes to read each passage. I usually finish a few seconds before 35 mins. I am amazed that there are people here who score consistently near perfect scores in PTs and who finish RC about 5 minutes early, both of which I consider to be difficult to do things.

Thank you for your response and the advice, I will try this today.

Are there any AC elimination approaches to identify the TCR between two competing choices in LR?
PS categories of strengthen, weaken, must be true etc are very obvious and I mentally cast the question into one of these and look at all ACs to find TCR. But, I don't apply any elimination tricks, if any, to go faster or be more precise.

If I drill LR from books then the undesirable side-effect is that I'd be exposed to recent lsat questions before taking PTs.

I would highly, highly recommend the Manhattan LR book after you finish the LRB. It goes significantly in greater depth on how to eliminate very attractive answer choices and how to really delve into the "core" of each stimulus.

They also go into certain tendencies that answer choices have. For weaken questions for example, in a causal conclusion you can show the presumed cause without the presumed effect, the effect without the cause, or something else affecting both and that can weaken the stimulus. You can show that neither are related. If the author is making a claim and says something in the conclusion along the lines of ("must" or "will" or "inevitably will occur", etc. think WHY does it HAVE to happen like that? Couldn't something else occur?)

Be flexible in strengthen weaken questions in bringing in outside information or something that isn't directly supported in the stimulus. Often these answer choices slightly strengthen/weaken by providing some sort of explanation that the author isn't considering. These ACs could also (and often do) rule out alternative considerations. If the author is making a claim that dinosaurs disappeared because of an asteroid landing on earth, a strengthen AC would be "there were not volcano eruptions that could have caused the extinction of dinosaurs" etc.

Almost always red flag answer choices in NA questions that say "any" "only" "must" these answer choices have a tendency to be weak. Master the negation test. Questions like must be true, inference, most strongly supported are also generally weak.

When you see a question about numbers/percentages/proportions, almost always expect the correct response to address this. The author will often use a percentage "30% greater number of teachers expected to be hired this upcoming year" and supporting premise "average numbers of students to teacher unchanged" therefore, you can infer that more students are enrolled. Another example "there is a higher # of car accidents in this country this year than last year" to reach a conclusion that says "therefore, a greater percentage of people are involved in crashes this year". What if there is significantly greater population this year than last year? Play with the numbers.

SA choices tend to be strong, often stronger than you need. Master conditional logic for these question stems. If a new concept is introduced in the conclusion, but nowhere else in the premises, that same concept MUST be in the correct answer choice for SA questions. You can almost always predict or anticipate the AC for this type.

In strengthen weaken questions there can also occasionally be AC's that weaken the premise or something you take as given, like support for a study or something the author is using to make his conclusion. Be flexible on these question types.

I'm sure you know some or most of this but it's little subtleties like what the Manhattan LR book showed that took my LR scores from minus 7+ to minus 2 or less consistently. Sorry for the long post, hope this helps. Again, the Manhattan LR book will be one of the best investments you can make for this exam.

[Daily_Double]

I have memorized the proctor's instructions accidentally. Simugator 1, DD -1.

[SteelPenguin]

Reviewing a PT and realizing you got a "main point of passage" question on RC wrong is not a good feeling.

RC is becoming infuriating, and my review of it the last few days has led to a decrease in my performance. I think I might leave RC alone if I have another poor section today. I don't see myself really making any improvements there in the next two weeks. I'll just work on drilling difficult LR and fine-tuning LG.