My concern is devoting enough time to write my personal statement and balancing studying. I think I'm going to take the LSAT, then get the applications in as fast as possible. But some places I apply will depend on my LSAT score.i was thinking the same thing too but i spoke with an admissions officer from columbia and told him im taking the december test but he strongly advised me to submit them over the break/before rather than january because the applications take time to process. he says you just let them know you are waiting for your score.
Post removed. Forum
- NotASpecialSnowflake
- Posts: 470
- Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:15 pm
Re: December 2013 Retakers
-
- Posts: 313
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:04 pm
Re: December 2013 Retakers
Thanks for the info! I can't imagine myself having the time to finish my PS and Why X before New Years. Studying for the December LSAT really just ruined all my plans.walket wrote:My concern is devoting enough time to write my personal statement and balancing studying. I think I'm going to take the LSAT, then get the applications in as fast as possible. But some places I apply will depend on my LSAT score.i was thinking the same thing too but i spoke with an admissions officer from columbia and told him im taking the december test but he strongly advised me to submit them over the break/before rather than january because the applications take time to process. he says you just let them know you are waiting for your score.
- retaking23
- Posts: 452
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:34 pm
Re: December 2013 Retakers
Question 20 in lr2 is brutal. I still want to cry when I think about it and still can't tell why the credited answer is correct. This is the first time I have not been able to use the negation test on a NA question.bee wrote:
good job! and lol at me being able to keep it together during lg...
which q's in particular did you have issues with in lr2? there were definitely some weird ones.
21 gave me a really tough time as well but I did get it right.
Blind review, I went -1 on this LR. I made a TON of mistakes from misreads in two parallel reasoning questions and some silly mistakes from rushing early in the section as well (got a overall conclusion question wrong wtf).
And I have since changed my mind about PT70's LR. If not for q20, I think this LR was pretty standard in terms of difficulty. Sure, the stimuli have gotten a lot wordier but the wrong choices, I think, are a little more on the obvious side, so that compensates a little for the wordiness. Or maybe this is that empowered feeling you get after a review taking over and I'm just kidding myself and I'll still have nightmares about this section tonight.
Anyway, can anyone do a comprehensive explanation of q20?
-
- Posts: 1846
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:11 pm
Re: December 2013 Retakers
.
Last edited by 062914123 on Thu Jul 03, 2014 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- neprep
- Posts: 1066
- Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:16 pm
Re: December 2013 Retakers
This is exactly how I approached it too.bee wrote: i tried to write out a detailed, nuanced answer but i just ended up getting tangled in the minutiae and confusing myself, lol. here's a great explanation: http://lsathacks.com/explanations/lsat- ... ng-2/q-20/
honestly, i didnt do anything near this detailed on the test. i treat every assumption q the same way--find the conclusion, ID the premises, spot the flaw/gap, find the ac that connects the conclusion with the flaw/gap. in this case, i saw that there was a bunch of blather about data, and then a random, seemingly unconnected conclusion about how "this data obviously can't explain the origin of the prohibitions." we were missing a reason WHY this data couldn't, and A was the only AC that even approached this.
^ quick and dirty way of doing it, success not guaranteed
Conclusion: Data cannot explain origin of prohibitions. Why (Premise): Those who made the prohibitions didn't have access to data.
Pre-phrase: In order to explain the origin, the people who made the prohibitions must have access to data about its effects.
(A) fits this pretty well.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- retaking23
- Posts: 452
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:34 pm
Re: December 2013 Retakers
Yes, I've told myself that this "quick and dirty" way to go about it is what I would do if I had this type of question again since answer choice A does (somehow, in ways I cannot even now quite understand) connect the premise with the the conclusion. But, I was not particuluarly focused on making the premises and conclusion connect on this question in real time because this is a necessary assumption. Now this might just very well be one of those necessary assumptions that also happen to be a sufficient assumption, and that is cruel, but the negation test let me down here. I cannot see, even after reading Graeme's explanation (whose analogy for this question btw is awesome), how the negation of A makes the argument fall apart. It is a sufficient assumption. I do see that much from choice A. But why exactly is this necessary?neprep wrote:This is exactly how I approached it too.bee wrote: i tried to write out a detailed, nuanced answer but i just ended up getting tangled in the minutiae and confusing myself, lol. here's a great explanation: http://lsathacks.com/explanations/lsat- ... ng-2/q-20/
honestly, i didnt do anything near this detailed on the test. i treat every assumption q the same way--find the conclusion, ID the premises, spot the flaw/gap, find the ac that connects the conclusion with the flaw/gap. in this case, i saw that there was a bunch of blather about data, and then a random, seemingly unconnected conclusion about how "this data obviously can't explain the origin of the prohibitions." we were missing a reason WHY this data couldn't, and A was the only AC that even approached this.
^ quick and dirty way of doing it, success not guaranteed
Conclusion: Data cannot explain origin of prohibitions. Why (Premise): Those who made the prohibitions didn't have access to data.
Pre-phrase: In order to explain the origin, the people who made the prohibitions must have access to data about its effects.
(A) fits this pretty well.
Edit: Whatever the case, the other choices obviously suck, so this one does, 100%, yield to elimination.
- neprep
- Posts: 1066
- Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:16 pm
Re: December 2013 Retakers
The negation is that it is not the case that the origin of food prohibition must be explained with reference to the understanding that the people who had adopted the prohibition had.retaking23 wrote:Yes, I've told myself that this "quick and dirty" way to go about it is what I would do if I had this type of question again since answer choice A does (somehow, in ways I cannot even now quite understand) connect the premise with the the conclusion. But, I was not particuluarly focused on making the premises and conclusion connect on this question in real time because this is a necessary assumption. Now this might just very well be one of those necessary assumptions that also happen to be a sufficient assumption, and that is cruel, but the negation test let me down here. I cannot see, even after reading Graeme's explanation (whose analogy for this question btw is awesome), how the negation of A makes the argument fall apart. It is a sufficient assumption. I do see that much from choice A. But why exactly is this necessary?neprep wrote:This is exactly how I approached it too.bee wrote: i tried to write out a detailed, nuanced answer but i just ended up getting tangled in the minutiae and confusing myself, lol. here's a great explanation: http://lsathacks.com/explanations/lsat- ... ng-2/q-20/
honestly, i didnt do anything near this detailed on the test. i treat every assumption q the same way--find the conclusion, ID the premises, spot the flaw/gap, find the ac that connects the conclusion with the flaw/gap. in this case, i saw that there was a bunch of blather about data, and then a random, seemingly unconnected conclusion about how "this data obviously can't explain the origin of the prohibitions." we were missing a reason WHY this data couldn't, and A was the only AC that even approached this.
^ quick and dirty way of doing it, success not guaranteed
Conclusion: Data cannot explain origin of prohibitions. Why (Premise): Those who made the prohibitions didn't have access to data.
Pre-phrase: In order to explain the origin, the people who made the prohibitions must have access to data about its effects.
(A) fits this pretty well.
Edit: Whatever the case, the other choices obviously suck, so this one does, 100%, yield to elimination.
If this is not the case, then the premise of the argument does not support the conclusion. If the negation is true, and you can explain the origin of the prohibition without concerning yourself with whether those who created it understood its mechanism, then why can't the "recent medical and anthropological data" also explain the origin? The author is claiming that this recent data cannot explain the origin, and thus necessarily assumes that the understanding of the people who introduced the prohibition is a necessary component to any explanation of the origin.
The reason this AC is not "sufficient" might be that the premise talks about the originators' access to the "same data as modern researchers," whereas the AC refers to a general understanding. Even if we establish that any explanation of the origin of these prohibitions is incomplete without reference to the originators' understanding of the prohibitions, it still does not rule out the fact that they might have had a good understanding of the prohibitions without having access to the "same data as modern researchers."
Last edited by neprep on Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
- retaking23
- Posts: 452
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:34 pm
Re: December 2013 Retakers
All of a sudden, I feel pretty stupid , quite satisfied (the type of satisfaction you feel when you can't remember something but magically recall it later), and well empowered, in that order. Thank you for this.neprep wrote: If this is not the case, then the premise of the argument does not support the conclusion. If the negation is true, and you can explain the origin of the prohibition without concerning yourself with whether those who created it understood its mechanism, then why can't the "recent medical and anthropological data" also explain the origin? The author is claiming that this recent data cannot explain the origin, and thus necessarily assumes that the understanding of the people who introduced the prohibition is a necessary component to any explanation of the origin.
- neprep
- Posts: 1066
- Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:16 pm
Re: December 2013 Retakers
No worries! I actually really like this question now, after having delved deeper into it. Every now and then you get this gem of an LR…and then you know it's Christmas.retaking23 wrote:All of a sudden, I feel pretty stupid , quite satisfied (the type of satisfaction you feel when you can't remember something but magically recall it later), and well empowered, in that order. Thank you for this.neprep wrote: If this is not the case, then the premise of the argument does not support the conclusion. If the negation is true, and you can explain the origin of the prohibition without concerning yourself with whether those who created it understood its mechanism, then why can't the "recent medical and anthropological data" also explain the origin? The author is claiming that this recent data cannot explain the origin, and thus necessarily assumes that the understanding of the people who introduced the prohibition is a necessary component to any explanation of the origin.
- Yazzzay
- Posts: 303
- Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:08 pm
Re: December 2013 Retakers
This is a really weird question but does anyone have some really good relaxation tips?
Obviously with one week left, 3rd take, I'm starting to get nervous and I can see it reflecting in my preptests. I've been taking 1 preptest per day for the past month (minus wkends), and now (for the last week) I've added 3-4 extra sections per day, and I can't calm down at all, until like 11pm when I finally lay down in bed.
Any tips for ways to relax during the day? I'm not working/in school now so that's also why this is the only thing consuming my time...gym/walks/watching tv isn't working.
I just need to remember this test is not going to make or break the future, but I'm becoming suffocated in it.
Obviously with one week left, 3rd take, I'm starting to get nervous and I can see it reflecting in my preptests. I've been taking 1 preptest per day for the past month (minus wkends), and now (for the last week) I've added 3-4 extra sections per day, and I can't calm down at all, until like 11pm when I finally lay down in bed.
Any tips for ways to relax during the day? I'm not working/in school now so that's also why this is the only thing consuming my time...gym/walks/watching tv isn't working.
I just need to remember this test is not going to make or break the future, but I'm becoming suffocated in it.
- lsatyolo
- Posts: 2403
- Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:17 pm
Re: December 2013 Retakers
Go to a movie, concert, hang out with friends, #YOLO, etc. That's a lot of work, mane. Maybe you should chillax this week. This is your 3rd time, you know what you are doing.Yazzzay wrote:This is a really weird question but does anyone have some really good relaxation tips?
Obviously with one week left, 3rd take, I'm starting to get nervous and I can see it reflecting in my preptests. I've been taking 1 preptest per day for the past month (minus wkends), and now (for the last week) I've added 3-4 extra sections per day, and I can't calm down at all, until like 11pm when I finally lay down in bed.
Any tips for ways to relax during the day? I'm not working/in school now so that's also why this is the only thing consuming my time...gym/walks/watching tv isn't working.
I just need to remember this test is not going to make or break the future, but I'm becoming suffocated in it.
- OVOXO
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:01 pm
Re: December 2013 Retakers
PT67
LR1 −1
LR2 −2
LG −1 (on game 2 fml)
RC −3
RCX10 −3
173
I’m feeling REALLY fatigued at this point. LRs in 60s are def tougher than 50s IMO. Zones wasn’t that bad once you had the rules down and brute forced/hypo’d it — I found its complexity in the really weird way the rules/background was written. “Zones,” “subzones,” “uses.” Once I figured out how all these different things related to one another and to my game board, the game was fine. i don’t think I’ve encountered any game previously so dependent on a few words determining the difference b/w a −0 and a −4.
I’m taking all of tomorrow off. My last few scores have been 177, 174, 174, 173, 175, 169, 173. I think I’m max’ing out.
LR1 −1
LR2 −2
LG −1 (on game 2 fml)
RC −3
RCX10 −3
173
I’m feeling REALLY fatigued at this point. LRs in 60s are def tougher than 50s IMO. Zones wasn’t that bad once you had the rules down and brute forced/hypo’d it — I found its complexity in the really weird way the rules/background was written. “Zones,” “subzones,” “uses.” Once I figured out how all these different things related to one another and to my game board, the game was fine. i don’t think I’ve encountered any game previously so dependent on a few words determining the difference b/w a −0 and a −4.
I’m taking all of tomorrow off. My last few scores have been 177, 174, 174, 173, 175, 169, 173. I think I’m max’ing out.
-
- Posts: 1846
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:11 pm
Re: December 2013 Retakers
.
Last edited by 062914123 on Thu Jul 03, 2014 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- OVOXO
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:01 pm
Re: December 2013 Retakers
Thanks, Bee! I hope we get zones a la pt66 next saturday!bee wrote:great job on 67, its an awful, awful ptOVOXO wrote:PT67
LR1 −1
LR2 −2
LG −1 (on game 2 fml)
RC −3
RCX10 −3
173
I’m feeling REALLY fatigued at this point. LRs in 60s are def tougher than 50s IMO. Zones wasn’t that bad once you had the rules down and brute forced/hypo’d it — I found its complexity in the really weird way the rules/background was written. “Zones,” “subzones,” “uses.” Once I figured out how all these different things related to one another and to my game board, the game was fine. i don’t think I’ve encountered any game previously so dependent on a few words determining the difference b/w a −0 and a −4.
I’m taking all of tomorrow off. My last few scores have been 177, 174, 174, 173, 175, 169, 173. I think I’m max’ing out.
-
- Posts: 1846
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:11 pm
Re: December 2013 Retakers
.
Last edited by 062914123 on Thu Jul 03, 2014 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- OVOXO
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:01 pm
Re: December 2013 Retakers
i didn’t mind it, even though I made a stupid error on one q. Of all the games so far, I think I hated the bike game from 64 the most.bee wrote:I REALLY DONT I HATE THAT GAME SO MUCH JFC.OVOXO wrote:Thanks, Bee! I hope we get zones a la pt66 next saturday!bee wrote:great job on 67, its an awful, awful ptOVOXO wrote:PT67
LR1 −1
LR2 −2
LG −1 (on game 2 fml)
RC −3
RCX10 −3
173
I’m feeling REALLY fatigued at this point. LRs in 60s are def tougher than 50s IMO. Zones wasn’t that bad once you had the rules down and brute forced/hypo’d it — I found its complexity in the really weird way the rules/background was written. “Zones,” “subzones,” “uses.” Once I figured out how all these different things related to one another and to my game board, the game was fine. i don’t think I’ve encountered any game previously so dependent on a few words determining the difference b/w a −0 and a −4.
I’m taking all of tomorrow off. My last few scores have been 177, 174, 174, 173, 175, 169, 173. I think I’m max’ing out.
-
- Posts: 297
- Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:05 am
Re: December 2013 Retakers
PT 63 yesterday with 60 LG as experimental.
LR -0, RC -0, LG - 0 on both.
OMG, FIRST 180! I'm so excited. but I doubt this weekend will be productive :/
LR -0, RC -0, LG - 0 on both.
OMG, FIRST 180! I'm so excited. but I doubt this weekend will be productive :/
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- mellow
- Posts: 296
- Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 8:07 pm
Re: December 2013 Retakers
PT 51.5 aka June 2007 (first take except for 1st game)
LR 1: -1
LR 2: -1
LG: -0
RC: -2
PT5 S4 RC as Exp: -0
96/100, 175
That -8 curve
LR 1: -1
LR 2: -1
LG: -0
RC: -2
PT5 S4 RC as Exp: -0
96/100, 175
That -8 curve
-
- Posts: 1846
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:11 pm
Re: December 2013 Retakers
.
Last edited by 062914123 on Thu Jul 03, 2014 7:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 297
- Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:05 am
Re: December 2013 Retakers
unfortunately I've seen some of them questions before. . But it's a confidence booster. Happy Thanksgivingbee wrote:congrats!!! -0 on 5 fresh sections = super impressiveFianna13 wrote:PT 63 yesterday with 60 LG as experimental.
LR -0, RC -0, LG - 0 on both.
OMG, FIRST 180! I'm so excited. but I doubt this weekend will be productive :/
-
- Posts: 313
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:04 pm
Re: December 2013 Retakers
PT 30, 173 (LG: -4, LR 1: -4, RC -2, LR 2, -3, RC Exp -2) (from this morning)
I've seen a couple of the LR questions in drills, and even that did not save me. It's an older PT, so I don't know how much its worth. I'm currently debating the worth of this retake since I'm not consistently scoring +175 (I'm the kind of test taker whose anxiety can easily claim 5 points.)
All I've ever wanted was a T-6 acceptance. Please, LSAT Gods...
I've seen a couple of the LR questions in drills, and even that did not save me. It's an older PT, so I don't know how much its worth. I'm currently debating the worth of this retake since I'm not consistently scoring +175 (I'm the kind of test taker whose anxiety can easily claim 5 points.)
All I've ever wanted was a T-6 acceptance. Please, LSAT Gods...
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 1:17 am
Re: December 2013 Retakers
Hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving!
Quick question- I know we're a week away but what do people think of Manhattan RC? I've read the Trainer and a few other books and blogs and it's been pretty useful. Is Manhattan RC worth the buy just for a quick read to see if it'll help for some perspective on RC?
I go anywhere from -1 to -4 on RC and it's a bit frustrating since it's the only section right now giving me that range. -____-
Quick question- I know we're a week away but what do people think of Manhattan RC? I've read the Trainer and a few other books and blogs and it's been pretty useful. Is Manhattan RC worth the buy just for a quick read to see if it'll help for some perspective on RC?
I go anywhere from -1 to -4 on RC and it's a bit frustrating since it's the only section right now giving me that range. -____-
-
- Posts: 784
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:50 am
Re: December 2013 Retakers
.
Last edited by dosto on Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
- bbkk
- Posts: 728
- Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:28 pm
Re: December 2013 Retakers
Fianna13 wrote:PT 63 yesterday with 60 LG as experimental.
LR -0, RC -0, LG - 0 on both.
OMG, FIRST 180! I'm so excited. but I doubt this weekend will be productive :/
Congrats on the 180!!! Perfect time to have it.
I did 63 yesterday as well but ended up missing 3 on games.. It was easy and I auto-piloted. Finished in 25 and decided (stupidly) not to double check.
I thought the RC was pretty tough on this PT. I REALLY hate the fiction/novel one. Sea Otter and seafloor spreading aren't easy either.
- bbkk
- Posts: 728
- Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:28 pm
Re: December 2013 Retakers
LAST WEEK GUYS....
Good luck!
Good luck!
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login