Post removed.

User avatar
JustHawkin
Posts: 1754
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:54 am

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby JustHawkin » Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:11 pm

Otunga wrote:
Fianna13 wrote:
Otunga wrote:Anybody want to do PT60 and review? It's one of the few recent tests I haven't seen a million times over.


When do you plan on reviewing it? I can do it this afternoon and review it tonight. If you are planning to do it later this week, it will give me sometime to finish blind review 68 first. BTW, Just took PT 68, it's my second time taking it and Game 4 is still awful, I even had about 17 min to do it. Anyone want to review 68?


Ah, I was probably gonna do it Saturday.

In on this, missed out on Tuesday due to anniversary. :oops:

User avatar
foundingfather
Posts: 937
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:31 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby foundingfather » Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:56 pm

How often do you guys review logic games? I've been going through the LSAT Trainer one chapter per day on weekdays (work & undergad limit my study time) and I'll go for days at a time without truly reviewing LG.

I'm currently going over the second set of LR and the corresponding drills on Mike Kim's 4-week study plan. Timing was never an issue for me, only accuracy really, so I'm going through the fundamentals and hopefully go up a few points on the Dec7 test.

I've got the basics for LG down pretty well, should I do at least 1 section every day I study so I don't get rusty?

webbdp3
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:47 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby webbdp3 » Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:57 pm

If anyone wants to hop on board I'll be starting a pretty rigorous retake prep regiment tomorrow and would welcome anyone to join for review. Plan on doing the following:

11/15 PT 58
11/16
11/17 PT 59
11/18 PT 60
11/19
11/20 PT 61
11/21 PT 62
11/22
11/23 PT 63
11/24 PT 64
11/25
11/26 PT 65
11/27 PT 66
11/28
11/29 PT 67
11/30 PT 68
12/1-12/6 A Section of 69 p/d with some review sprinkled in
*12/7 PT 71*

Days left blank will be used to drill for an hour or two on problem types I missed but more focused on rest. Was PTing 170-172 before October and melted down on test day for a 165. Have been retaking 176-180 so hoping to carry the momentum forward into test day. Anyone in?

astinkytoilet
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 4:35 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby astinkytoilet » Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:15 pm

Checking in. Its crunch time.

Thorcogan
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 12:50 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby Thorcogan » Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:55 pm

JustHawkin wrote:
Otunga wrote:
Fianna13 wrote:
Otunga wrote:Anybody want to do PT60 and review? It's one of the few recent tests I haven't seen a million times over.


When do you plan on reviewing it? I can do it this afternoon and review it tonight. If you are planning to do it later this week, it will give me sometime to finish blind review 68 first. BTW, Just took PT 68, it's my second time taking it and Game 4 is still awful, I even had about 17 min to do it. Anyone want to review 68?


Ah, I was probably gonna do it Saturday.

In on this, missed out on Tuesday due to anniversary. :oops:


Any chance we could do the review either Sunday night or Monday night? Either that or tonight haha. I'm completely swamped this weekend. Going to be able to study, but I doubt I'm able to review the way you guys do in the group chat.

If not good luck

User avatar
sashafierce
Posts: 454
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 11:44 am

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby sashafierce » Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:17 pm

The poll should have a few options for international applicants like me :( mines is superior btw not that it matters much for admissions. On a happier note, Amazon has Synchro back in stock, I ordered mines last night :D

User avatar
Otunga
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:56 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby Otunga » Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:10 pm

53/57 on L4 Flaw over the past couple days. I've seen the stuff before, but I've been recognizing the flaw(s) much more efficiently before going into the answers than I have before, and that's helping for sure. On the misses, I'm not going in with a good conception of what's wrong with the argument. So I should review those in-depth. I'd expect some of these flaws to be very subtle at this level, but still, it shouldn't be unattainable to get them.

User avatar
vicpin5190
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:12 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby vicpin5190 » Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:14 pm

Otunga wrote:53/57 on L4 Flaw over the past couple days. I've seen the stuff before, but I've been recognizing the flaw(s) much more efficiently before going into the answers than I have before, and that's helping for sure. On the misses, I'm not going in with a good conception of what's wrong with the argument. So I should review those in-depth. I'd expect some of these flaws to be very subtle at this level, but still, it shouldn't be unattainable to get them.



This level of accuracy has been happening with me regarding Nec. Assumption. I've become a pro at finding the missing hole which is great. I love that feeling when it clicks.


If I could tighten it up on weakens and flaw so that i'm automatic there I'm in great shape for LR.

User avatar
Fianna13
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:05 am

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby Fianna13 » Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:10 pm

Well, I ended up retaking 65 today instead of 60, So I doubt I'll PT again until Sunday. So sunday night works for me if others are ok with it.

User avatar
milkandcheerios
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:58 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby milkandcheerios » Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:03 pm

lsatyolo wrote:RC is just completely bufu'ing me. I can't seem to make any significant gains :(


i feel your pain. I think i've actually gotten WORSE at RC if that's even possible. I've been re-doing sections since i'm out of fresh material and a lot of the times, I actually get more wrong and i did the first time.

HELP!

User avatar
vicpin5190
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:12 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby vicpin5190 » Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:31 am

On older RCs, my plight is oversight at this point, not lack of understanding.

On new RCs, it's definitely shifting gears and making those LR type question inferences.

I'm working feverishly to focus on RC right now as that will definitely be the kicker for me. It's beatable, and (for the most part) it has nothing to do with lack of understanding, I just need to be as meticulous as I have become in LR.

Thorcogan
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 12:50 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby Thorcogan » Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:49 am

Is it me or was PT 41 LR very, very straightforward. I have been successfully getting 1-3 wrong per section for a while now, but on 41 (first time through) I went -0, -1 and in each section had 2 1/2+ minutes to spare. Normally I finish with around a minute to spare.

I also practiced them back to back, so 51 straight LR questions. Should I be as happy as I am, or is this 1 weirdly easy.

User avatar
vicpin5190
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:12 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby vicpin5190 » Fri Nov 15, 2013 9:23 am

Thorcogan wrote:Is it me or was PT 41 LR very, very straightforward. I have been successfully getting 1-3 wrong per section for a while now, but on 41 (first time through) I went -0, -1 and in each section had 2 1/2+ minutes to spare. Normally I finish with around a minute to spare.

I also practiced them back to back, so 51 straight LR questions. Should I be as happy as I am, or is this 1 weirdly easy.


I have yet to look at those LRs, but in general the RC wasn't too bad either? a few trick questions here and there but nothing absurd. Maybe they get you with the games....

User avatar
Otunga
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:56 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby Otunga » Fri Nov 15, 2013 9:47 am

Thorcogan wrote:Is it me or was PT 41 LR very, very straightforward. I have been successfully getting 1-3 wrong per section for a while now, but on 41 (first time through) I went -0, -1 and in each section had 2 1/2+ minutes to spare. Normally I finish with around a minute to spare.

I also practiced them back to back, so 51 straight LR questions. Should I be as happy as I am, or is this 1 weirdly easy.


You're already averaging a good LR score, so I wouldn't chalk it up as necessarily easy. That said, it's possible the LR offsets the difficulty of the circle game, as that's a strange one. From what I recall about this test, everything's fairly straightforward aside from that circle game. If it means anything, I got my PT average on it.

User avatar
lsatyolo
Posts: 1824
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:17 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby lsatyolo » Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:36 am

I'm probably gonna go back through the chapters on RC from the trainer this coming week. I remember being totally out of it glossing over one of the chapters, hopefully I missed something crucial that will magically help me.

Thorcogan
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 12:50 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby Thorcogan » Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:52 am

Otunga wrote:
Thorcogan wrote:Is it me or was PT 41 LR very, very straightforward. I have been successfully getting 1-3 wrong per section for a while now, but on 41 (first time through) I went -0, -1 and in each section had 2 1/2+ minutes to spare. Normally I finish with around a minute to spare.

I also practiced them back to back, so 51 straight LR questions. Should I be as happy as I am, or is this 1 weirdly easy.


You're already averaging a good LR score, so I wouldn't chalk it up as necessarily easy. That said, it's possible the LR offsets the difficulty of the circle game, as that's a strange one. From what I recall about this test, everything's fairly straightforward aside from that circle game. If it means anything, I got my PT average on it.


Yeah, easy wasn't the right word, as this test is never easy lol. I don't know, I just felt like as I was reading the stimuli I could diagnose every single one, and find the flaw/argument structure really quickly compared to other PTs. Hopefully it's due to my increased LR ability.

Does someone who has taken all or a majority of the PTs have a couple of PTs that stick out as being very difficult for LR? Thanks

Thorcogan
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 12:50 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby Thorcogan » Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:59 am

lsatyolo wrote:I'm probably gonna go back through the chapters on RC from the trainer this coming week. I remember being totally out of it glossing over one of the chapters, hopefully I missed something crucial that will magically help me.


Personally, I didn't respond to "lessons" about RC. I know how to read lol. Understanding the basic differences between types of passages helped a little, but most of my strides have come from practice, getting comfortable with the length and type of passages, and lots of repetition.

Just a thought for you if you are struggling.

Disclaimer: I am a -2 to -5 right now while finishing with 30 sec to a minute left, but I used to be a -4 to -10 where I would barely get to the 4th passage. So you can definitely improve. Keep at it.

agglomeration
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby agglomeration » Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:42 pm

So the people at the 180 watch company have been out of stock for a while now and still don't have any in. Does anyone by any chance happen to have an extra one their willing to sell or know of someone who has one who wants to sell it?

User avatar
vicpin5190
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:12 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby vicpin5190 » Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:48 pm

agglomeration wrote:So the people at the 180 watch company have been out of stock for a while now and still don't have any in. Does anyone by any chance happen to have an extra one their willing to sell or know of someone who has one who wants to sell it?



I ordered a watch that does LSAT timing here: http://lsattimer.com/ and it seems like it's still in stock. I'm not sure what the difference is between this and the 180 watch though

User avatar
Otunga
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:56 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby Otunga » Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:52 pm

Thorcogan wrote:
Otunga wrote:
Thorcogan wrote:Is it me or was PT 41 LR very, very straightforward. I have been successfully getting 1-3 wrong per section for a while now, but on 41 (first time through) I went -0, -1 and in each section had 2 1/2+ minutes to spare. Normally I finish with around a minute to spare.

I also practiced them back to back, so 51 straight LR questions. Should I be as happy as I am, or is this 1 weirdly easy.


You're already averaging a good LR score, so I wouldn't chalk it up as necessarily easy. That said, it's possible the LR offsets the difficulty of the circle game, as that's a strange one. From what I recall about this test, everything's fairly straightforward aside from that circle game. If it means anything, I got my PT average on it.


Yeah, easy wasn't the right word, as this test is never easy lol. I don't know, I just felt like as I was reading the stimuli I could diagnose every single one, and find the flaw/argument structure really quickly compared to other PTs. Hopefully it's due to my increased LR ability.

Does someone who has taken all or a majority of the PTs have a couple of PTs that stick out as being very difficult for LR? Thanks


Some sections from the 40s, and definitely 69 and 70.

User avatar
lsatyolo
Posts: 1824
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:17 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby lsatyolo » Fri Nov 15, 2013 1:03 pm

Thorcogan wrote:
lsatyolo wrote:I'm probably gonna go back through the chapters on RC from the trainer this coming week. I remember being totally out of it glossing over one of the chapters, hopefully I missed something crucial that will magically help me.


Personally, I didn't respond to "lessons" about RC. I know how to read lol. Understanding the basic differences between types of passages helped a little, but most of my strides have come from practice, getting comfortable with the length and type of passages, and lots of repetition.

Just a thought for you if you are struggling.

Disclaimer: I am a -2 to -5 right now while finishing with 30 sec to a minute left, but I used to be a -4 to -10 where I would barely get to the 4th passage. So you can definitely improve. Keep at it.


I definitely have to admit that I neglected RC when studying for June/October. I'm such an r tard. I get what these lessons are telling me to do, it just never translates to when I'm drilling or doing a PT, which sucks.

blackbirdfly
Posts: 313
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:04 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby blackbirdfly » Fri Nov 15, 2013 1:11 pm

vicpin5190 wrote:
agglomeration wrote:So the people at the 180 watch company have been out of stock for a while now and still don't have any in. Does anyone by any chance happen to have an extra one their willing to sell or know of someone who has one who wants to sell it?



I ordered a watch that does LSAT timing here: http://lsattimer.com/ and it seems like it's still in stock. I'm not sure what the difference is between this and the 180 watch though


Do you think 180-style watches a must have? I always forget to reset my watch during tests.

agglomeration
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby agglomeration » Fri Nov 15, 2013 1:24 pm

Having some trouble with this stupid LR question. Looked at some other boards but couldn't find a satisfactory explanation. Question is PT 64 S1 23. Its the Ethicist "Marital Vows/Love as a feeling" sufficient assumption question. Can someone help walk me through this one in their thought process? Also, if any of you are "diagram heavy" LR'ers could you show me how you diagrammed it too? This is the only question i got wrong in that section and it's annoying me i can't figure it out.

here's a bit of my though process.

LF= love feeling
PS= Promise makes sense
F= feelings
C= Control

LF-->~PS
F-->~C
C(promise)-->~sense

Ok so i stop the diagramming isn't looking like it'll work. Re-read. I see "control" a lot in the premises but not the conclusion. Love is everywhere but is also the focal point. So maybe connect those two. Not sure. Screw it answer choices.

A) no because this is merely a restating of one of the premises (feelings are not within one's control)
B) Looks good. If promising to do something makes no sense, then we shouldn't do it. But this doesn't feel great.
C) (i choose)- since i couldn't figure out the answer before hand and after going through and eliminating i was still kinda stumped, it made me think this was one of those weird sufficient questions where the answer is kinda like a necessary assumption question. So this looks good. If love can't be taken to refer to something other than feelings, then the argument would fall apart.
D) (correct answer- but i eliminated)- I eliminated it because it says "should not be interpreted" when the conclusion is about "those making marital vows." Hmm. If i'm making the marital vow, i'm not interpreting it. The person i'm saying it too is interpreting it. Ok eliminate.
E) Eliminate because it's kind of a premise booster.

Any help? Thanks!

User avatar
mhaas
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:53 am

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby mhaas » Fri Nov 15, 2013 1:39 pm

blackbirdfly wrote:
vicpin5190 wrote:
agglomeration wrote:So the people at the 180 watch company have been out of stock for a while now and still don't have any in. Does anyone by any chance happen to have an extra one their willing to sell or know of someone who has one who wants to sell it?



I ordered a watch that does LSAT timing here: http://lsattimer.com/ and it seems like it's still in stock. I'm not sure what the difference is between this and the 180 watch though


Do you think 180-style watches a must have? I always forget to reset my watch during tests.


Definitely not a "must-have", but definitely helpful if you're neurotic.

Thorcogan
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 12:50 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby Thorcogan » Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:04 pm

agglomeration wrote:Having some trouble with this stupid LR question. Looked at some other boards but couldn't find a satisfactory explanation. Question is PT 64 S1 23. Its the Ethicist "Marital Vows/Love as a feeling" sufficient assumption question. Can someone help walk me through this one in their thought process? Also, if any of you are "diagram heavy" LR'ers could you show me how you diagrammed it too? This is the only question i got wrong in that section and it's annoying me i can't figure it out.

here's a bit of my though process.

LF= love feeling
PS= Promise makes sense
F= feelings
C= Control

LF-->~PS
F-->~C
C(promise)-->~sense

Ok so i stop the diagramming isn't looking like it'll work. Re-read. I see "control" a lot in the premises but not the conclusion. Love is everywhere but is also the focal point. So maybe connect those two. Not sure. Screw it answer choices.

A) no because this is merely a restating of one of the premises (feelings are not within one's control)
B) Looks good. If promising to do something makes no sense, then we shouldn't do it. But this doesn't feel great.
C) (i choose)- since i couldn't figure out the answer before hand and after going through and eliminating i was still kinda stumped, it made me think this was one of those weird sufficient questions where the answer is kinda like a necessary assumption question. So this looks good. If love can't be taken to refer to something other than feelings, then the argument would fall apart.
D) (correct answer- but i eliminated)- I eliminated it because it says "should not be interpreted" when the conclusion is about "those making marital vows." Hmm. If i'm making the marital vow, i'm not interpreting it. The person i'm saying it too is interpreting it. Ok eliminate.
E) Eliminate because it's kind of a premise booster.

Any help? Thanks!


Went to PT 64 s1 23 and it wasn't this question lol. That was dec 2011 right?

Ok found it, was 1 test too far lol. Anyway, this is how I broke it down in my head.

Premise 1. Ppl make marital vows to love each other forever.
Premise 2. Love can be interpreted as a feeling
Premise 3. No1 has control over feelings
Premise 4. Makes no sense to do something that 1 has no control over.
Conclusion. Shouldn't interpret love as a feeling when promising to love forever.

Well, what's missing between all those premises and the conclusion? My thought going into the questions was can I get a link between something not making sense should not be interpreted that way.

Answer choice D says exactly that, so I was happy. Hope that helped. And hope I didn't violate any rules while breaking that down.

EDIT: something I like doing is also seeing why all the answers were wrong.

A) restates premise
B) tempting, but the conclusion is about interpreting love a certain way.
C) also tempting, and would be the correct answer if the conclusion was something like "so love should be interpreted as something else". However it's not necessary for it to be something other than a feeling for this conclusion to be true
E) restates a premise
Last edited by Thorcogan on Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cherrygalore, Greenteachurro, VMars and 3 guests