JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread

User avatar
isuperserial
Posts: 519
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 11:49 pm

Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread

Postby isuperserial » Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:39 am

redecember wrote:RC is killing me.

My LR Average is around 3-4 per section, LG is 0-1, and my RC is 8-9ish....

RC is really holding me back from a 167+. My main concern with it is timing and I'm always rushing to finish all 4 passages. I know test day is soon, so realistically I'm not expecting any drastic changes by then, but someone recommended that I should put the time necessary for me to feel confident about 3 passages and guess on the fourth. Sounds interesting, but also risky because one of the three passages might be an extremely difficult one..

Any comments or suggestions about this approach?


A common problem that people have with Reading Comp, especially considering time issues, is that they want to speed up, so they rush through the initial passage. Then they end up forgetting shit or misreading phrases, or reading it and just not actually comprehending everything about it. Then when a question comes up regarding this, they have to go back to reread. 9 times out of 10, if you have reread on a question that doesn't refer to a specific phrase or line number, then you did not do your work up front. Like Logic Games, and in a smaller sense Logical Reasoning, the key to speeding up is slowing down. You must do your work on the original passage to succeed on the questions.

Obviously this is not a universal rule, but I would try taking a deep breath and focusing really hard on the passage itself and seeing if that has a positive impact. If it doesn't, then don't do it, but I think it's worth a shot.

User avatar
Dr. Dre
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread

Postby Dr. Dre » Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:39 am

ManoftheHour wrote:I hope y'all had a better day than I did. Despite getting a near perfect on LR, I got completely annihilated on RC and completely and utterly @ss raped on LG. The stained glass game stumped me and I had no clue how to even go about doing game 3.

Final score: 164. Worst PT in my last 11 attempts.


wus that the first time u took that PT?

User avatar
CardozoLaw09
Posts: 1744
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:58 pm

Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread

Postby CardozoLaw09 » Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:40 am

ManoftheHour wrote:The stained glass game stumped me and I had no clue how to even go about doing game 3


First time seeing it?

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3398
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread

Postby ManoftheHour » Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:41 am

Dr. Dre wrote:
ManoftheHour wrote:I hope y'all had a better day than I did. Despite getting a near perfect on LR, I got completely annihilated on RC and completely and utterly @ss raped on LG. The stained glass game stumped me and I had no clue how to even go about doing game 3.

Final score: 164. Worst PT in my last 11 attempts.


wus that the first time u took that PT?


Yeah. I can't remember the last time I scored this badly...

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3398
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread

Postby ManoftheHour » Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:42 am

CardozoLaw09 wrote:
ManoftheHour wrote:The stained glass game stumped me and I had no clue how to even go about doing game 3


First time seeing it?


Yeah. What's up with the curve? I kind of half assed it after I bombed the LG (section 3). I should have just powered through. But still. No excuses.

I don't think I've ever bombed two games on one exam. And to think I was getting better at this. Man, WHY CAN'T I DO LGS?! Everyone on this forum swears it's the easiest section to perfect...

User avatar
TheMostDangerousLG
Posts: 1547
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 4:25 am

Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread

Postby TheMostDangerousLG » Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:47 am

ManoftheHour wrote:
CardozoLaw09 wrote:
ManoftheHour wrote:The stained glass game stumped me and I had no clue how to even go about doing game 3


First time seeing it?


Yeah. What's up with the curve? I kind of half assed it after I bombed the LG (section 3). I should have just powered through. But still. No excuses.

I don't think I've ever bombed two games on one exam. And to think I was getting better at this. Man, WHY CAN'T I DO LGS?! Everyone on this forum swears it's the easiest section to perfect...


How have you studied for LGs? What guides have you read? Do you drill sections, game types, both?

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3398
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread

Postby ManoftheHour » Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:54 am

TheMostDangerousLG wrote:
ManoftheHour wrote:
CardozoLaw09 wrote:
ManoftheHour wrote:The stained glass game stumped me and I had no clue how to even go about doing game 3


First time seeing it?


Yeah. What's up with the curve? I kind of half assed it after I bombed the LG (section 3). I should have just powered through. But still. No excuses.

I don't think I've ever bombed two games on one exam. And to think I was getting better at this. Man, WHY CAN'T I DO LGS?! Everyone on this forum swears it's the easiest section to perfect...


How have you studied for LGs? What guides have you read? Do you drill sections, game types, both?


I've gone through PS twice and I've gone through Manhattan and Blueprint. Did the Cambridge series. I'm not sure what else I can do at this point. It's been two years and I'm almost completely out of new material. In terms of basic linear and grouping games, I've gone them down. In terms of these random games, it's a complete crapshoot. Some games (mulch/sand, mauve dinosaurs) are really easy for me but every now and then, I get these games that I just can't crack. I would say in most PTs, I'd struggle in at most one game. I thought -5 on LG on my last exam was bad. Hell, I thought -9 on my actual LSAT on the LG section was bad. But this is an entirely new low. If this happens on game day, I'm completely done for.
Last edited by ManoftheHour on Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dr. Dre
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread

Postby Dr. Dre » Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:54 am

ManoftheHour wrote:
CardozoLaw09 wrote:
ManoftheHour wrote:The stained glass game stumped me and I had no clue how to even go about doing game 3


First time seeing it?


Yeah. What's up with the curve? I kind of half assed it after I bombed the LG (section 3). I should have just powered through. But still. No excuses.

I don't think I've ever bombed two games on one exam. And to think I was getting better at this. Man, WHY CAN'T I DO LGS?! Everyone on this forum swears it's the easiest section to perfect...


bro NEVER HALF ASS IT!

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3398
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread

Postby ManoftheHour » Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:56 am

Dr. Dre wrote:bro NEVER HALF ASS IT!


I know. But I only missed 2 on the next section (LR) and I missed 0 on the other LR section, so that wasn't what did me in. It's those F#$%ing games man.

User avatar
CardozoLaw09
Posts: 1744
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:58 pm

Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread

Postby CardozoLaw09 » Sun Jun 02, 2013 1:01 am

ManoftheHour wrote:
CardozoLaw09 wrote:
ManoftheHour wrote:The stained glass game stumped me and I had no clue how to even go about doing game 3


First time seeing it?


Yeah. What's up with the curve? I kind of half assed it after I bombed the LG (section 3). I should have just powered through. But still. No excuses.

I don't think I've ever bombed two games on one exam. And to think I was getting better at this. Man, WHY CAN'T I DO LGS?! Everyone on this forum swears it's the easiest section to perfect...


Maybe it's your set up; a good diagram is key. Here's mine if it helps.

Image

User avatar
Dr. Dre
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread

Postby Dr. Dre » Sun Jun 02, 2013 1:02 am

what type of game is the stained glasses?

grouping?

theycallmefoes
Posts: 329
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:13 pm

Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread

Postby theycallmefoes » Sun Jun 02, 2013 1:05 am

Can someone help me with a must be false LR question? It's PT6-S3-Q19. Apparently, I'm not grasping something about the conditional relationships, because I had answered C, but the correct response is D - and, while I think I understand the logic behind D, I'm still not clear as to why C is definitively incorrect.

Here's how I understood the conditional relationships (hopefully this isn't revealing too much about the question):

1. L has large campaign fund (LCF)-->L is far ahead (LFA)-->M does not run (-MR)

2. -LCF-->M scrutinizes record (MSR)
2a. Scandalous (S)-->increase M winning (IMW)-->MR
2b. L clean record (LCR)-->-MR

So, C says: S and -MR
D says: -IMW and MR

When I first read D, I figured that -IMW was a negation of the sufficient condition for MR and, thus, not a logical contradiction. However, now that my attention is focused on D, I think the reasoning behind the answer hinges on the transition from "scandalous" to "clean" - rather:
LCR = -S such that -S-->-MR. However, 2a shows that -IMW-->-S (and, accordingly, -MR). Thus, -IMW and MR is an impossibility.

With respect to C: S is a sufficient condition for MR, such that if S is the case, then MR necessarily follows. This isn't the case in C, in which the sufficient condition is met, yet the necessary condition does not obtain. This is why I thought C must be false - that it could be true still doesn't make sense to me. The only way I can see this as a possible outcome is if I refer back to my first conditional chain: LCF-->-MR. Rather, perhaps it is the case that LCF, so -MR regardless of whether or not S is the case (i.e., maybe L did have scandals, but, because he has large campaign funds, M still doesn't run).

Thoughts? Any help would be greatly appreciated!

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3398
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread

Postby ManoftheHour » Sun Jun 02, 2013 1:06 am

Dr. Dre wrote:what type of game is the stained glasses?

grouping?


I would categorize it as one. Gonna be a long night. I don't think I can sleep until I figure this thing out.

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3398
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread

Postby ManoftheHour » Sun Jun 02, 2013 1:10 am

theycallmefoes wrote:Can someone help me with a must be false LR question? It's PT6-S3-Q19. Apparently, I'm not grasping something about the conditional relationships, because I had answered C, but the correct response is D - and, while I think I understand the logic behind D, I'm still not clear as to why C is definitively incorrect.

Here's how I understood the conditional relationships (hopefully this isn't revealing too much about the question):

1. L has large campaign fund (LCF)-->L is far ahead (LFA)-->M does not run (-MR)

2. -LCF-->M scrutinizes record (MSR)
2a. Scandalous (S)-->increase M winning (IMW)-->MR
2b. L clean record (LCR)-->-MR

So, C says: S and -MR
D says: -IMW and MR

When I first read D, I figured that -IMW was a negation of the sufficient condition for MR and, thus, not a logical contradiction. However, now that my attention is focused on D, I think the reasoning behind the answer hinges on the transition from "scandalous" to "clean" - rather:
LCR = -S such that -S-->-MR. However, 2a shows that -IMW-->-S (and, accordingly, -MR). Thus, -IMW and MR is an impossibility.

With respect to C: S is a sufficient condition for MR, such that if S is the case, then MR necessarily follows. This isn't the case in C, in which the sufficient condition is met, yet the necessary condition does not obtain. This is why I thought C must be false - that it could be true still doesn't make sense to me. The only way I can see this as a possible outcome is if I refer back to my first conditional chain: LCF-->-MR. Rather, perhaps it is the case that LCF, so -MR regardless of whether or not S is the case (i.e., maybe L did have scandals, but, because he has large campaign funds, M still doesn't run).

Thoughts? Any help would be greatly appreciated!


C could be true, because L might have a large campaign fund. D must be false, because regardless of whether L has a large campaign fund or not, if his record is clean, then M won't be running.
Last edited by ManoftheHour on Sun Jun 02, 2013 1:13 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Dr. Dre
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread

Postby Dr. Dre » Sun Jun 02, 2013 1:12 am

ManoftheHour wrote:
Dr. Dre wrote:what type of game is the stained glasses?

grouping?


I would categorize it as one. Gonna be a long night. I don't think I can sleep until I figure this thing out.



start at 1 minute

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ3tTM_9 ... w&index=53

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3398
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread

Postby ManoftheHour » Sun Jun 02, 2013 1:15 am

Dr. Dre wrote:
ManoftheHour wrote:
Dr. Dre wrote:what type of game is the stained glasses?

grouping?


I would categorize it as one. Gonna be a long night. I don't think I can sleep until I figure this thing out.



start at 1 minute

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ3tTM_9 ... w&index=53


Thanks Dre.

jmjm
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:59 am

Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread

Postby jmjm » Sun Jun 02, 2013 1:33 am

Ambitious1 wrote:
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.


thanks for the suggestions. I purchased a manhattan lr book and will be going through it. It seems to use a different system for classifying/naming of question types than PS.
I have been also trying to see if changing the strategy to reading the question stem first as opposed to the current style of stimulus first helps in any way in LR.

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3398
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread

Postby ManoftheHour » Sun Jun 02, 2013 1:39 am

Lol...I fucked on the grading for my RC.

Actual score for PT 62: 167.

It's not great, but it's not as bad as I thought it was. Those games still sucked.

Damn, I need some sleep.

NoWorries
Posts: 100
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 9:05 pm

Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread

Postby NoWorries » Sun Jun 02, 2013 1:50 am

Anyone else basically hermitted themselves for this test? I can't wait for this to end so I can enjoy summer and talk to females again.

NoWorries
Posts: 100
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 9:05 pm

Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread

Postby NoWorries » Sun Jun 02, 2013 1:59 am

ManoftheHour wrote:
CardozoLaw09 wrote:
ManoftheHour wrote:The stained glass game stumped me and I had no clue how to even go about doing game 3


First time seeing it?


Yeah. What's up with the curve? I kind of half assed it after I bombed the LG (section 3). I should have just powered through. But still. No excuses.

I don't think I've ever bombed two games on one exam. And to think I was getting better at this. Man, WHY CAN'T I DO LGS?! Everyone on this forum swears it's the easiest section to perfect...


I probably average -.5 on LG and I missed like 4 or 5 on that test. Seriously ignore PT 62 results.

User avatar
Dr. Dre
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread

Postby Dr. Dre » Sun Jun 02, 2013 2:01 am

Do you think stained glass game is harder than zones?

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3398
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread

Postby ManoftheHour » Sun Jun 02, 2013 2:06 am

NoWorries wrote:
ManoftheHour wrote:
CardozoLaw09 wrote:
ManoftheHour wrote:The stained glass game stumped me and I had no clue how to even go about doing game 3


First time seeing it?


Yeah. What's up with the curve? I kind of half assed it after I bombed the LG (section 3). I should have just powered through. But still. No excuses.

I don't think I've ever bombed two games on one exam. And to think I was getting better at this. Man, WHY CAN'T I DO LGS?! Everyone on this forum swears it's the easiest section to perfect...


I probably average -.5 on LG and I missed like 4 or 5 on that test. Seriously ignore PT 62 results.


Seriously. Fuck that exam. I think I'm just being overly dramatic with this. My LGs aren't great, but they're never this bad. I just got do review this shit and move on. No time to doubt myself one week before the exam.

Thanks for that.

NoWorries
Posts: 100
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 9:05 pm

Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread

Postby NoWorries » Sun Jun 02, 2013 2:06 am

Dr. Dre wrote:Do you think stained glass game is harder than zones?


I'm taking 67 for the first time tomorrow so I'll let you know then.

Stained glass is the type of game which is easy once you get the pattern. Problem is that often takes awhile and forces you to rush the later game. It's not just brute force you have to stop and think about it.

User avatar
Dr. Dre
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread

Postby Dr. Dre » Sun Jun 02, 2013 2:08 am

manofthehour

didn't you say you improved substantially in LG after Manhattan LG?

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3398
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

Re: JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread

Postby ManoftheHour » Sun Jun 02, 2013 2:12 am

Dr. Dre wrote:manofthehour

didn't you say you improved substantially in LG after Manhattan LG?


Yeah. I went from -8 to -11 (got -9 on a real LSAT) to -0 to -4. I'm still not great at them. Most TLSers consistently get -0. Games are the reason why my last 10 exams look like this: 167, 170, 165, 174, 168, 170, etc.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests