JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread Forum

[ManoftheHour]

This is frustrating. For PT 62, I interpreted game 3 as having six talks instead of 5. I thought there was a comma somewhere where there wasn't, so that's why I couldn't figure the game out.

For whatever reason, we both misinterpreted the stimulus. It sucks because looking back, that game was pretty easy.

[Ambitious1]

Took PT65 today

LR1: -1
LG: -0
LG (exp 51.5): -0
RC: -9
LR2: -4

87/101 for a 170.

Same story with RC. Poor 2nd LR section but some tough questions and got off to a horrible start. Every beginning of an LR section is just a race against time to get as many as I can in before 15 minutes..effective strategy but I need to remember how to put it back into gear when I get to the tougher questions. Back into gear meaning finding the arg. core and trying to prephase/predict an answer or assumptions.

[sublime]

..

[Daily_Double]

PT 65 has thoroughly pissed me off. I'm doing horribly on LR for some reason and I really don't need this 7 days before my exam. Can anyone explain the answer to S4 #16?

Also can someone help me with a strategy for 'which of the following accurately expresses the conclusion' questions. Does the right answer normally include some form of the critics opinion or am I mistaken?

I'll take this one for you. Let me know if you have any more questions on this one because other than RC and a time-consuming LG, I though this one was relatively straightforward. So here we have a method of the argument question, as usual we're looking at the response of someone to something.

Critic: if policies aren't changed ---> country's Econ. into recession


Econ: because warning changes policies ---> no recession

What the economist is really doing is saying that the conditional statement the Critic quoted was not wrong. Why? Because the sufficient condition of his prediction was not met.

[lawschoolplease1]

this test needs to end.

[CardozoLaw09]

this test needs to end.

On the contrary, I'm going to actually miss LSAT prep when it's all said and done. And I know I'm not the only one

[jmjm]

I may not get to much look at cambridge LR packet before june administration, but do they only have this in PDF and for 1-38 PTs?
http://www.cambridgelsat.com/bundles/lo ... g-by-type/
Want to get hold of the correct cambridge book/package that everyone on tls talks about.

[SteelPenguin]

Alright, how is PT 62-RC-15 A? B, and even C ("strictly" makes it wrong) both seem like better answers. I can't figure out how A makes sense.

I may not get to much look at cambridge LR packet before june administration, but do they only have this in PDF and for 1-38 PTs?
http://www.cambridgelsat.com/bundles/lo ... g-by-type/
Want to get hold of the correct cambridge book/package that everyone on tls talks about.

I believe cambridge hard questions is PDF only, and there is no modern version from cambridge.

[ManoftheHour]

Alright, how is PT 62-RC-15 A? B, and even C ("strictly" makes it wrong) both seem like better answers. I can't figure out how A makes sense.

B is wrong because passage A does not mention overall health. Only B does.
C is wrong, as you said, because of "strictly."

A is right because passage A talks about the link between the dental records (archaeological record) and the development of agriculture. Evidence: Lines 1-5. Passage B talks about the decline in health and the increasing dependence (hence, development) on agriculture over time (lines 39-45) and uses dental caries (again, archaeological record) as evidence.

[Daily_Double]

Alright, how is PT 62-RC-15 A? B, and even C ("strictly" makes it wrong) both seem like better answers. I can't figure out how A makes sense.

I missed this question the first time I took this. I choose B. That being said, B is out of scope. Both passages are really talking about develeopment of agriculture, the resulting consumption of carbs, and it's relation to carries formation. The issue with B is overall human health. The passage is limited to the development of agriculture, subsequent ingestion of specific carbs and carries. That's it. Thus, B is out of scope. Answer choice A addresses the first part of that purpose. Both passages talk about carries and it's relation to basically the diets of people. However, speaking more broadly, both passages introduce, continue, and conclude this issue with evidence of blah blah (answer A)

[TheMostDangerousLG]

SEVEN DAYS. ONE WEEK. O____O

[mvonh001]

this test needs to end.

On the contrary, I'm going to actually miss LSAT prep when it's all said and done. And I know I'm not the only one

Word.

[NoWorries]

For the first time in awhile I'm somewhat concerned about how I will perform. My scores were once solidly 174+ and now fluctuate wildly from 169-180. I am hoping it is just a motivational/focus thing and that I can bring the A game next Monday however it's pretty apparent there will be a degree of luck thrown into my score. F.

[TheMostDangerousLG]

For the first time in awhile I'm somewhat concerned about how I will perform. My scores were once solidly 174+ and now fluctuate wildly from 169-180. I am hoping it is just a motivational/focus thing and that I can bring the A game next Monday however it's pretty apparent there will be a degree of luck thrown into my score. F.

No luck. A real LSAT prepper makes their own luck. Sure, you don't know how conditions are going to end up test day, but short of a proctor having a nervous breakdown or calling time ten minutes early, you should prepare yourself for varying conditions.

If your PT scores are fluctuating from 169-180, I would imagine it's a sign that there are conceptual gaps in your prep/definite weak areas you could improve.

[sublime]

..

[NoWorries]

Well obviously, that's the concerning thing. There's no individual problem type which particularly hurts me. It's mainly a mental thing so I have to hope to be in that condition on Monday.

But regardless, when you get into the mid 170's I definitely feel there is a luck factor. The DD's of the world will obviously own the test but if you are in that middle ground you can easily fluctuate 3+ points.

[Daily_Double]

I'm not perfect by any means, I just know when to pause and when not to. Even then, I still make mistakes. In addition, since this is my first time, I'll have just as much test anxiety, if not more, than other high scorers. We all know what to do at this point in the game, I think now it's just being confident that we do, In fact know it. The evidence is there, but test day, I assume will still be a challenge.

I suppose what will be different about me is that I don't care whether or not I retake. October wouldn't affect me at all, but I doubt it will be an issue.

[sublime]

..

[Daily_Double]

Not really any new tips. If you missed any recently and you want a second opinion, let me know, it's easier to give tips and advice with examples. And most of what I've done is in this thread somewhere, I'll compile it all if I hit my desired score.

[Nicolena.]

I've decided to take the October test. I've really been struggling with balancing work and LSAT. I am finally starting to see improvement on my practice tests though. Does anyone have any advice for people waiting until October? And possible advice for those of us working full time? I probably work about 50 hours a week not including a commute.

Thanks guys.

[TheMostDangerousLG]

Well obviously, that's the concerning thing. There's no individual problem type which particularly hurts me. It's mainly a mental thing so I have to hope to be in that condition on Monday.

But regardless, when you get into the mid 170's I definitely feel there is a luck factor. The DD's of the world will obviously own the test but if you are in that middle ground you can easily fluctuate 3+ points.

I still disagree on the luck factor. Yes, your score will always fluctuate, but usually it's within a 1-4 point range, not an 11-point range. "Luck" is not pushing you from 169 to 180. Are you tracking your PT results on LSATQA or with a tracking spreadsheet to make sure there aren't particular areas where you're consistently messing up? If you're really fine across the board, and it is just severe test anxiety that's causing you to drop by a substantial amount, I would think it might be worth putting off the test until you have those issues out, particularly if this is a retake.

[isuperserial]

Well obviously, that's the concerning thing. There's no individual problem type which particularly hurts me. It's mainly a mental thing so I have to hope to be in that condition on Monday.

But regardless, when you get into the mid 170's I definitely feel there is a luck factor. The DD's of the world will obviously own the test but if you are in that middle ground you can easily fluctuate 3+ points.

I still disagree on the luck factor. Yes, your score will always fluctuate, but usually it's within a 1-4 point range, not an 11-point range. "Luck" is not pushing you from 169 to 180. Are you tracking your PT results on LSATQA or with a tracking spreadsheet to make sure there aren't particular areas where you're consistently messing up? If you're really fine across the board, and it is just severe test anxiety that's causing you to drop by a substantial amount, I would think it might be worth putting off the test until you have those issues out, particularly if this is a retake.

The issue for me is that 1 or 2 points is the difference between NYU and Georgetown. I have a 3 point range that could result in either.

[itachiuchiha]

I am definitely in burnout mode. I am just drilling at this point as I already went through all the preptest except 68

[CardozoLaw09]

PT 65 has thoroughly pissed me off. I'm doing horribly on LR for some reason and I really don't need this 7 days before my exam. Can anyone explain the answer to S4 #16?

Also can someone help me with a strategy for 'which of the following accurately expresses the conclusion' questions. Does the right answer normally include some form of the critics opinion or am I mistaken?

I'll take this one for you. Let me know if you have any more questions on this one because other than RC and a time-consuming LG, I though this one was relatively straightforward. So here we have a method of the argument question, as usual we're looking at the response of someone to something.

Critic: if policies aren't changed ---> country's Econ. into recession


Econ: because warning changes policies ---> no recession

What the economist is really doing is saying that the conditional statement the Critic quoted was not wrong. Why? Because the sufficient condition of his prediction was not met.

Some more feedback on this one:

The critic is saying that the economist made yet another faulty prediction because the economy was stronger this year; to support that contention he cites the condition on which the economists' prediction was based ie) Econ Policies not Changed ---> Recession. What the critic is incorrectly doing is challenging the economist by asserting that his necessary condition did not obtain and so his prediction was wrong. But for the necessary condition to obtain the sufficient condition must be met and in this case it was not met.

The economist points this out by saying his warning that if economic policies are not changed then a recession will occur is what prompted the country's leaders to change policies. A) captures this as it says the state of affairs (econ policies not changed) did not occur so it is not surprising that the economy was stronger this year; his prediction was based on a condition and that condition was not satisfied thus there was nothing wrong with his prediction about the economy.

[RhymesLikeDimes]

PT 65 today:

LR1: -0
LG: -0
RC: -3 (#13, 25, 27. Must have spent 3 minutes on #19 (what a miserable question that is), and wound up with only 70 seconds for the last 3 Qs.)
LR2: -0

Raw: 98 ---> Scaled: 180


Feelin' fine.