JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread

[A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A]

DD killing it

[CardozoLaw09]

Holy shit congrats DD! You're on your way to dat 180 my brotha

[Daily_Double]

so. we are reviewing PT 41 tomorrow night yeah? i'm going to take it on the bus ride from nyc to philly

I'm down for whenever, I'll be in the library all weekend to get ahead in school anyway so it's not like I have major plans. And if you can successfully do an LG section on a bus, in time, then you should be awarded a 180, because that sounds impossible.

[Theopliske8711]

I've been doing them on the subway, not timed of course. still tough, but a nice way to spend the time.

[ready4180]

I do mine in my office at work, and I always try to time myself on my cell...although when others walk by (often) I'm forced to stop the clock and work on my computer for a few minutes...I can't tell if this is helping my score, hurting, or has no effect. I've gotten down to -0 on most, but when I do miss a question it's usually -1 and a dumb mistake. I'm hoping it has to do with my stop-and-go way of doing these games

[Daily_Double]

I'm taking 41 tomorrow. I don't have a good feeling but I'll do it just to get a test in me.

Timed four sections or should I throw in a variable there? And if, so...which section? An RC or LR?

Why don't you feel good? I ask because if you take a PT before you're relatively ready, you might get discouraged, which depending on your personality, will lead to frustration and anxiety. One the other hand, some people say that since you can't expect to score perfectly without taking PTs, you might as well start taking them. I suggest a middle of the way approach, first I would suggest basics, then drilling, then PTs. Where are you in your prep? If this is your first PT, and you want to take it, then take it untimed, and try to apply the methods you have learned to the best of your ability.

[rebexness]

[ready4180]

@DD -- congrats on the recent 180! If you don't mind me asking, where are you in your prep? I've been drilling LG nonstop, and hoping to move onto the Manhattan LR next week, but I kind of want to hold off on any more PTs until I've seen a substantial amount of LR (LR1 & 2 always my weakest sections, and I've always taken 2 PTs but got frustrated by these section results). Thanks!!

[Daily_Double]

@DD -- congrats on the recent 180! If you don't mind me asking, where are you in your prep? I've been drilling LG nonstop, and hoping to move onto the Manhattan LR next week, but I kind of want to hold off on any more PTs until I've seen a substantial amount of LR (LR1 & 2 always my weakest sections, and I've always taken 2 PTs but got frustrated by these section results). Thanks!!

Thanks, although as I said I've seen at least a couple of those passages before, and although I didn't remember any answers, familiarity might have been a factor.

As of now, I've taken a class at my undergrad, read Powerscore's Bibles and Manhattan's Books about three times each, if you include skimming (excluding RCB, which I only read once). Then I took a couple PTs, don't remember which ones, and I'm not at home so I can't check my records. Did well on the PTs, moved into Cambridge, LR and LG, 1-38, I'm 2/3 of the way through most of LR, although some areas, assumption family and inference, got more attention than others. Did all of the games 1-38. Did somewhere between 5 and 15 RC sections while drilling LR and LG, most of my RC prep was untimed. Then I started taking PTs, somewhere around then, maybe a bit before. I've taken about 10 PTs as of now. I also picked up Cambridge's Difficult LR problems, 1-38, I'm working through those, excluding the problems from PT 1-20, redoing all of the LG problems, and trying to fit in RC sections while still maintaining my PT schedule.

[CardozoLaw09]

As of now, I've taken a class at my undergrad

What class? Like a logic course?

[Daily_Double]

As of now, I've taken a class at my undergrad

What class? Like a logic course?

No it is an actual LSAT class, not for GPA points, at my university taught by a 180, or close I don't remember exactly, scorer. It wasn't awesome, but it reinforced a lot of the things I was doing, this was last semester when I was reading Powerscore and Manhattan.

[eliztudorr]

@ DD: congratzs on your result today!! <--- just want to pt that out first

for those who used MLSAT's LG. in Ch 10 Conditional Grouping, did anyone actually use the complicated diagram that introduced? is it helpful? i didn't use that when i started studying the LG, instead i draw a tree like thing with arrows. and find the manhattan way a bit monstrous, so am hesitating to actually pick it up.

[CardozoLaw09]

As of now, I've taken a class at my undergrad

What class? Like a logic course?

No it is an actual LSAT class, not for GPA points, at my university taught by a 180, or close I don't remember exactly, scorer. It wasn't awesome, but it reinforced a lot of the things I was doing, this was last semester when I was reading Powerscore and Manhattan.

Nice - wish my uni had something like that.

LG Question for you guys:

PT 16, Game 4, #23

If the rankings of the other 4 variables relative to one another remain the same then they'd have to be RJLS with M in the 1st position. This scenario works out fine if the sequence of matches is even, odd, and even. But if it's odd, even, and odd, then the orientation after the final match is RMJSL which violates the condition in the question stem that all of the other four teams remain the same relative to one another since R is two spots ahead of J. In both cases, though, J is in the third spot which is the correct answer, but since the relative order of the other four teams changes if the sequence is odd, even, odd, then the matches can only be played with the even, odd, even sequence. Are we just to assume that the sequence of matches has to be even, odd, even given the condition in the question stem? I ask because if in real time if you're doing this question and use the sequence of odd, even, odd first and realize that R is two spots ahead of J then you'd probably try out the other sequence (even, odd, even) because you recognized that the teams are not the same relative to one another and then you'd end up getting to the same answer but after having to try out both sequences which would be a serious waste of time. Hopefully you get what I'm saying, if not, feel free to ask me to clarify. Thanks!

[Chambo]

Just did PT 41 (my first since October)

LR: -0
LG: -3
LR: -1
RC: -4

Turns out I picked the one with the circle! Yay! Didn't get to two of the games Qs (third miss was a dumb mistake)

LR felt rusty but was otherwise solid.

I hadn't even looked at an RC question, so it felt the rustiest. And I was always pretty shaky.

Either way it's good to know I haven't completely lost it. Although I question the validity of these results considering I've seen this test before at least a few times.

[The-Specs]

Checking in.

Decided that I am definitely retaking in June. Depending on how it goes I may still be headed to a law school this fall but hopefully I can do well enough that I can justify taking the year off and get into a T-14 next year.

[griffin.811]

@Armed - Nice! I banking?

@RK - "except" and "cannot" get me all the time in LG. Died when I saw that.

it's a back office role. but if i get it, i'm going to try to hustle into IB for when i graduate in the fall

Nice! work hard and make it happen.

[Daily_Double]

Anybody know which PTs, or specific problems we will be using for the manhattan review tomorrow, which I will probably be late to.

[crazyrobin]

Nice - wish my uni had something like that.

LG Question for you guys:

PT 16, Game 4, #23

If the rankings of the other 4 variables relative to one another remain the same then they'd have to be RJLS with M in the 1st position. This scenario works out fine if the sequence of matches is even, odd, and even. But if it's odd, even, and odd, then the orientation after the final match is RMJSL which violates the condition in the question stem that all of the other four teams remain the same relative to one another since R is two spots ahead of J. In both cases, though, J is in the third spot which is the correct answer, but since the relative order of the other four teams changes if the sequence is odd, even, odd, then the matches can only be played with the even, odd, even sequence. Are we just to assume that the sequence of matches has to be even, odd, even given the condition in the question stem? I ask because if in real time if you're doing this question and use the sequence of odd, even, odd first and realize that R is two spots ahead of J then you'd probably try out the other sequence (even, odd, even) because you recognized that the teams are not the same relative to one another and then you'd end up getting to the same answer but after having to try out both sequences which would be a serious waste of time. Hopefully you get what I'm saying, if not, feel free to ask me to clarify. Thanks!

CardozoLaw09, as for the rules, if you interpret the 2nd, 3rd, 4th rule as odd, 2-3 interchangeable 4-5 interchangeable, even, 1-2 interchangeable, 3-4 interchangeable.

Given this circumstance, if this two rules are played in a odd-even or vice versa order, in order to have M won three times and the other four remaining the same relative order, the orders have to be even-odd-even. Even you want to try odd-even-odd, you can just go over the order in your mind by interchanging 12345.

Let me know if you have any questions.

[Daily_Double]

It would seem that I will in fact be missing tomorrow's Manhattan review session due to a meeting which was moved from tomorrow morning to the afternoon. I can't get out of it. Good luck everyone. As a side note, I will be free to review PT 41 tomorrow evening and anytime on Saturday and Sunday. In addition, if you are doing self-review, and running into some trouble, PM me, and I'll try to help.

[Remmy]

Checking in. I've decided to start studying for the LSAT next week, and begin studying in earnest come March. I got a 148 on the LSAT cold, but don't worry - I won't even consider Law School unless I get a 166 or above (3.03 uGPA).

Ideally going for that 180, but realistically, I want to break into the 170's. Already printed every single actual LSAT test, and put them into binders. Additionally, I've got the PS Bible for LG & LR. I also printed out all of Pithypike's guide and its referenced contents, and put them into another binder.

I can do this - I've got a plan, and I will not be deterred. Hope we all kill it

Also, anyone know of a good Excel spreadsheet or Google Doc that you can input your scores by section on and see all of your results broken down? I swear I saw one before, but I can't find it. Thanks.

[Cambridge LSAT]

Also, anyone know of a good Excel spreadsheet or Google Doc that you can input your scores by section on and see all of your results broken down? I swear I saw one before, but I can't find it. Thanks.

We have one available here:
LSAT Test Tracking Spreadsheet

[Remmy]

Also, anyone know of a good Excel spreadsheet or Google Doc that you can input your scores by section on and see all of your results broken down? I swear I saw one before, but I can't find it. Thanks.

We have one available here:
LSAT Test Tracking Spreadsheet

Thanks for the link. I don't use Twitter (nor am I interested in ever getting on it.)

Any possible way to get this?

[crazyrobin]

Thanks for the link. I don't use Twitter (nor am I interested in ever getting on it.)

Any possible way to get this?

lsatqa.com

This website will do all the magic.

[A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A]

Thanks for the link. I don't use Twitter (nor am I interested in ever getting on it.)

Any possible way to get this?

lsatqa.com

This website will do all the magic.

This. That link makes you out yourself on twitter.

Also: http://www.zenof180.com has a free PT analyzer. I haven't tried it yet, but it looks interesting.

[arkgawilson]

Hey there...you mentioned having printed all the tests.. Is there a website you can do this from? I would love that. I'm a grad student and already spent a ton of money on a class and on the study materials I do have. Any help would be much appreciated!

Checking in. I've decided to start studying for the LSAT next week, and begin studying in earnest come March. I got a 148 on the LSAT cold, but don't worry - I won't even consider Law School unless I get a 166 or above (3.03 uGPA).

Ideally going for that 180, but realistically, I want to break into the 170's. Already printed every single actual LSAT test, and put them into binders. Additionally, I've got the PS Bible for LG & LR. I also printed out all of Pithypike's guide and its referenced contents, and put them into another binder.

I can do this - I've got a plan, and I will not be deterred. Hope we all kill it

Also, anyone know of a good Excel spreadsheet or Google Doc that you can input your scores by section on and see all of your results broken down? I swear I saw one before, but I can't find it. Thanks.