The Official September 2014 Study Group Forum

[cavalier2015]

hey guys, for those of you who just started to Prep I wanted to see if y'all wanted to form a study group where we go over detailed analysis of our Cambridge packets and talk over each question and discuss it in detail. i'm fairly in the beginning of my studies and am looking to have someone around the same level so we can progress together. but if you're deep into drilling, feel free to still join as I can learn a lot from your insight.

i plan to have all my drilling done by mid july. so if you have a similar timeframe, please PM me or reply on here and we can get in contact (via email or FB) and kick the LSATs ass.

[Straw_Mandible]

Hi everyone!

I'm jumping back into LSAT prep, after easing off for a few months. I took PT55 on Saturday, and I was a bit disappointed with the outcome, but not entirely surprised. My score was a 163, with the following breakdown:

LR -3
RC -10
LR -1
LG -5

I am aware of the fact that my RC is an abomination, and my LR is on point. The LG score worries me somewhat, since I have gone -0 in the past. But the last two games on this test really stumped me. I took a few educated guesses on both of them. I have not been drilling games lately, so I hope once I review these and get back into the swing of things, I will be able to shore up my skills relatively quickly.

The RC section is the bane of my existence. I had never considered myself illiterate before I started studying for the LSAT, but now I'm strongly considering joining a support group. (Or, alternatively, re-enrolling in elementary school classes.) When I start an RC section, my anxiety is through the roof, in a manner that simply doesn't occur in the other sections. To give you an idea, on my last PT (54, in February) I scored a 170, and the breakdown was -1 combined LR, -0 LG, and -10 RC. I have never finished an RC section in time, and I often find myself reading and rereading sections of the passage without drawing any meaning from them whatsoever. It's a serious problem, which I have no idea how to solve, so I'm coming to you for help!

I have been drilling passages untimed, and I nearly always go -0. It's the pressure of reading quickly that causes me to lose my focus. My plan is to just start drilling the hell out of full, timed RC sections, as a sort of baptism by fire. Does this seem like a good place to start? Feeling frustrated.

I hope everyone here is studying and prospering and making progress!

Cheers,

SM

[chicharon]

Post removed...

[papercut]

Hi everyone!

I'm jumping back into LSAT prep, after easing off for a few months. I took PT55 on Saturday, and I was a bit disappointed with the outcome, but not entirely surprised. My score was a 163, with the following breakdown:

LR -3
RC -10
LR -1
LG -5

I am aware of the fact that my RC is an abomination, and my LR is on point. The LG score worries me somewhat, since I have gone -0 in the past. But the last two games on this test really stumped me. I took a few educated guesses on both of them. I have not been drilling games lately, so I hope once I review these and get back into the swing of things, I will be able to shore up my skills relatively quickly.

The RC section is the bane of my existence. I had never considered myself illiterate before I started studying for the LSAT, but now I'm strongly considering joining a support group. (Or, alternatively, re-enrolling in elementary school classes.) When I start an RC section, my anxiety is through the roof, in a manner that simply doesn't occur in the other sections. I have never finished an RC section in time, and I often find myself reading and rereading sections of the passage without drawing any meaning from them whatsoever. To give you an idea, on my last PT (54, in February) I scored a 170, and the breakdown was -1 combined LR, -0 LG, and -10 RC. It's a serious problem, which I have no idea how to solve, so I'm coming to you for help!

I have been drilling passages untimed, and I nearly always go -0. It's the pressure of reading quickly that causes me to lose my focus. My plan is to just start drilling the hell out of full, timed RC sections, as a sort of baptism by fire. Does this seem like a good place to start? Feeling frustrated.

I hope everyone here is studying and prospering and making progress!

Cheers,

SM

LR and RC aren't really all that different.

Since you're doing pretty well in LR, you should be doing better in RC. Try to use your LR question type strategies for the RC questions.

Also, don't try to read quickly. I can take as long as 5 minutes to read a passage, and I almost never miss a question. Take your time reading the passage. Really understand each sentence. Then when you get to the questions, you won't have to go back and re-read the passage. You might glance back to reassure yourself, or check on the strength of claim, but you'll know exactly where to look and you won't have to read full sentences.

After you're done reading a passage, you should know the answers to the main point question, the author's attitude (which is usually just a play on the main point), and the organization question.

[Toby Ziegler]

Hi everyone!

I'm jumping back into LSAT prep, after easing off for a few months. I took PT55 on Saturday, and I was a bit disappointed with the outcome, but not entirely surprised. My score was a 163, with the following breakdown:

LR -3
RC -10
LR -1
LG -5

I am aware of the fact that my RC is an abomination, and my LR is on point. The LG score worries me somewhat, since I have gone -0 in the past. But the last two games on this test really stumped me. I took a few educated guesses on both of them. I have not been drilling games lately, so I hope once I review these and get back into the swing of things, I will be able to shore up my skills relatively quickly.

The RC section is the bane of my existence. I had never considered myself illiterate before I started studying for the LSAT, but now I'm strongly considering joining a support group. (Or, alternatively, re-enrolling in elementary school classes.) When I start an RC section, my anxiety is through the roof, in a manner that simply doesn't occur in the other sections. To give you an idea, on my last PT (54, in February) I scored a 170, and the breakdown was -1 combined LR, -0 LG, and -10 RC. I have never finished an RC section in time, and I often find myself reading and rereading sections of the passage without drawing any meaning from them whatsoever. It's a serious problem, which I have no idea how to solve, so I'm coming to you for help!

I have been drilling passages untimed, and I nearly always go -0. It's the pressure of reading quickly that causes me to lose my focus. My plan is to just start drilling the hell out of full, timed RC sections, as a sort of baptism by fire. Does this seem like a good place to start? Feeling frustrated.

I hope everyone here is studying and prospering and making progress!

Cheers,

SM

Welcome, glad to see someone from outside the LSAT forums in here!
Your starting place is amazing, especially with the time we have until test day. I am going to take my first PT since my diagnostic this saturday and would be please to be where you are now. But still hoping for the 173+ come game day.

Have you read any guides for RC? I haven't yet, but I hear MLSAT RC is pretty helpful.

[Straw_Mandible]

LR and RC aren't really all that different.

Since you're doing pretty well in LR, you should be doing better in RC. Try to use your LR question type strategies for the RC questions.

Also, don't try to read quickly. I can take as long as 5 minutes to read a passage, and I almost never miss a question. Take your time reading the passage. Really understand each sentence. Then when you get to the questions, you won't have to go back and re-read the passage. You might glance back to reassure yourself, or check on the strength of claim, but you'll know exactly where to look and you won't have to read full sentences.

After you're done reading a passage, you should know the answers to the main point question, the author's attitude (which is usually just a play on the main point), and the organization question.

Thanks for this, papercut. Your strategy is unusual--at least contrasted with the LSAT Trainer's recommendation of being under 3 mins per passage and referring back heavily to the passage while answering the questions. I think your way might work better for me, since much of my time is wasted spinning my wheels trying to locate relevant sections of text which I glossed over during a hasty first read.

As for the comparison between RC and LR: Of course I see why this makes sense, but the sections feel radically different to me. I caught on to LR very naturally, since I am accustomed to reading slowly and deliberately, paying careful attention to small (but significant) details, and being ruthlessly critical of arguments. RC seems to require the exact opposite style of reading: the ability to skim quickly over a large wall of dense text, pluck out main points, and organize them structurally. These tasks just feel so foreign to the way I normally read.

Do you recommend that I treat RC passages almost like long LR stimuli? I'm not sure exactly how I would do that, but it seems like it could serve as an appropriate mindset.

[papercut]

Thanks for this, papercut. Your strategy is unusual--at least contrasted with the LSAT Trainer's recommendation of being under 3 mins per passage and referring back heavily to the passage while answering the questions. I think your way might work better for me, since much of my time is wasted spinning my wheels trying to locate relevant sections of text which I glossed over during a hasty first read.

As for the comparison between RC and LR: Of course I see why this makes sense, but the sections feel radically different to me. I caught on to LR very naturally, since I am accustomed to reading slowly and deliberately, paying careful attention to small (but significant) details, and being ruthlessly critical of arguments. RC seems to require the exact opposite style of reading: the ability to skim quickly over a large wall of dense text, pluck out main points, and organize them structurally. These tasks just feel so foreign to the way I normally read.

Do you recommend that I treat RC passages almost like long LR stimuli? I'm not sure exactly how I would do that, but it seems like it could serve as an appropriate mindset.

Yeah the skimming is your problem.

I'm not familiar with the LSAT trainer, but I'm strongly against any sort of rushing or skimming of the RC passages. Try to do a 4.5-4 or 5-3.5 minute split between passage and questions.

You know how you can predict what the correct answer will look like from the stimulus on LR? Well on RC, you should try to predict which parts they might ask questions about.

At the very least you should become very familiar with the layout of the passage so if you have to, you can quickly look at the relevant parts of the passage for your question. But if you take your time and read slowly, taking in everything just as critically as you would an LR stim, you'll find that you don't have to look back at the passage very much at all.

[mornincounselor]

Post removed.

[papercut]

Oh, this is interesting.

Here are some rules of thumb:

If something caused something else to happen, they will usually ask a question about it.

If something is an illustration, or an example of something, they will usually ask a question about it.

If two things are similar, but nonetheless different (say, Revolutionary Art vs Scarred Art), they will usually ask a question about it.

If there is some study or experiment, they will usually ask a question about it.

If they told you a Marty McFly thinks something, they will usually ask you how he'd feel about something similar.

If they define some term or process, they will usually ask a question about it.

If the author says something is "the key," "the chief purpose," "the chief reason," "the primary factor," or uses any other strong language, they will usually ask a question about it.

[bondja]

^^^ Those are great rules to think about while reading RC.

[Toby Ziegler]

Oh, this is interesting.

Here are some rules of thumb:

If something caused something else to happen, they will usually ask a question about it.

If something is an illustration, or an example of something, they will usually ask a question about it.

If two things are similar, but nonetheless different (say, Revolutionary Art vs Scarred Art), they will usually ask a question about it.

If there is some study or experiment, they will usually ask a question about it.

If they told you a Marty McFly thinks something, they will usually ask you how he'd feel about something similar.

If they define some term or process, they will usually ask a question about it.

If the author says something is "the key," "the chief purpose," "the chief reason," "the primary factor," or uses any other strong language, they will usually ask a question about it.

Thanks for the rules of thumb, Papercut -- especially since RC is seen by many as an "either you have it or you don't" kinda thing. These red flag tricks are invaluable.

[churrochi]

hey guys, for those of you who just started to Prep I wanted to see if y'all wanted to form a study group where we go over detailed analysis of our Cambridge packets and talk over each question and discuss it in detail. i'm fairly in the beginning of my studies and am looking to have someone around the same level so we can progress together. but if you're deep into drilling, feel free to still join as I can learn a lot from your insight.

i plan to have all my drilling done by mid july. so if you have a similar timeframe, please PM me or reply on here and we can get in contact (via email or FB) and kick the LSATs ass.

I'm curious as to how you're scheduling your drilling. I recently started studying as well. I'm retaking the test, and I want to incorporate a LOT of drilling, as it's something I believe could enhance my score success this time around.

[AbhiJ]

I used to be SUPER concerned about getting the test done and over with. Yet within the last few months I have realized that I'd rather prep hard and smart, ensuring a high score rather than an early completion. I don't care if I am studying until NEXT june if that means I will get the score I want.

How many hours are you studying every week. I mean by June 2015 you can redo all the LSAT questions ever published 2-3 times.

[Straw_Mandible]

Yeah the skimming is your problem.

I'm not familiar with the LSAT trainer, but I'm strongly against any sort of rushing or skimming of the RC passages. Try to do a 4.5-4 or 5-3.5 minute split between passage and questions.

You know how you can predict what the correct answer will look like from the stimulus on LR? Well on RC, you should try to predict which parts they might ask questions about.

At the very least you should become very familiar with the layout of the passage so if you have to, you can quickly look at the relevant parts of the passage for your question. But if you take your time and read slowly, taking in everything just as critically as you would an LR stim, you'll find that you don't have to look back at the passage very much at all.

I am absolutely going to try to allocate my time this way on my next RC section. I think I can use my slow, deliberate, and thorough reading style to my advantage--as long as I can focus on the right things during my initial read and fly through the questions quickly and confidently.

Your rules of thumb are very helpful. I understand that significant improvement on RC can come from basic pattern recognition: knowing where to focus our attention. But I've found that in the newer sections (especially the comparative passages) more weight is placed on knowledge of super-specific details (i.e. "Which of the following punctuation marks appears in Passage A but not in Passage B?"). I waste eons and eons scouring the passages to confirm these details -- usually just chasing ghosts. Maybe spending more time with the passages on the initial read will allow me to answer these questions in a reasonable amount of time.

Thanks for the tip!

[vracovino]

Does anyone else find strengthen to be a particularly difficult question type? Any tips?

[mornincounselor]

Post removed.

[papercut]

Does anyone else find strengthen to be a particularly difficult question type? Any tips?

Strengthen questions are difficult.

Here's my process:

1. Breakdown the argument - premise? conclusion? weird background? (Most people don't worry about the stuff outside the premises and conclusion, but they often use the background info to make sense of otherwise silly answer choice. The best example of this is the electric car, lawn mower air pollution question.)
2. Find the flaw - there's always a flaw.
3. Try to make the flaw less damaging. (you don't have to fix it, that's for sufficient assumption questions).

So at (1) you have to find the main point. So, strengthen questions are at least as difficult as main point questions. At (2) you have to find the flaw, so strengthen questions are at least as difficult as flaw questions. And finally (3) you have to try to make the argument somewhat better.

Depending on the flaw you find, you should have a pretty good idea about what the correct answer choice will look like.

[h3jk5h]

I recently started drilling the Cambridge LR packets.

One thing I noticed is that some questions are out there to screw with you. There is one question that has an extremely long stem that involves complex reasoning, and it turns out that the right answer corresponds to a basic understanding of only the first sentence of the stem, while the rest is there to lure you into the wrong answer choices. Wow.

Another thing I noticed is that how well I process a LR stimulus is not static - it varies. I have a lot more trouble comprehending the stimulus (and follow the argument) on a science topic (especially biology) than other topics such as political science. And then there are days where I have comprehension issues in general, and other days where I'm able to process LR questions much more effectively.

So I'm starting to notice a great degree of unpredictability in terms of LR skills on a given day, which baffles me.

[Calbears123]

Assuming I don't score as high as I want to next week I'll be taking the LSAT on more time in September. Anyways I've exhausted about 85% of all the official material. So I was wondering if anyone in the bay area might want to get together and study. I found in college I did better on tests if I studied with someone and explained what I was thinking. Figured it might help with the LSAT. PM me

[zaetoroftheprotoss]

.

[vracovino]

Does anyone else find strengthen to be a particularly difficult question type? Any tips?

Strengthen questions are difficult.

Here's my process:

1. Breakdown the argument - premise? conclusion? weird background? (Most people don't worry about the stuff outside the premises and conclusion, but they often use the background info to make sense of otherwise silly answer choice. The best example of this is the electric car, lawn mower air pollution question.)
2. Find the flaw - there's always a flaw.
3. Try to make the flaw less damaging. (you don't have to fix it, that's for sufficient assumption questions).

So at (1) you have to find the main point. So, strengthen questions are at least as difficult as main point questions. At (2) you have to find the flaw, so strengthen questions are at least as difficult as flaw questions. And finally (3) you have to try to make the argument somewhat better.

Depending on the flaw you find, you should have a pretty good idea about what the correct answer choice will look like.

Thanks a lot. I think my major problem right now is not necessarily being unable to locate the flaw, but rather finding that flaw adequately addressed in the answer choices. As soon as I start reading the often convoluted and lengthy answer choices I seem to lose sight of what I was originally looking for.

Hopefully more drilling will help and iron this out, but I've been doing absolutely abysmal thus far.

[papercut]

Does anyone else find strengthen to be a particularly difficult question type? Any tips?

Strengthen questions are difficult.

Here's my process:

1. Breakdown the argument - premise? conclusion? weird background? (Most people don't worry about the stuff outside the premises and conclusion, but they often use the background info to make sense of otherwise silly answer choice. The best example of this is the electric car, lawn mower air pollution question.)
2. Find the flaw - there's always a flaw.
3. Try to make the flaw less damaging. (you don't have to fix it, that's for sufficient assumption questions).

So at (1) you have to find the main point. So, strengthen questions are at least as difficult as main point questions. At (2) you have to find the flaw, so strengthen questions are at least as difficult as flaw questions. And finally (3) you have to try to make the argument somewhat better.

Depending on the flaw you find, you should have a pretty good idea about what the correct answer choice will look like.

Thanks a lot. I think my major problem right now is not necessarily being unable to locate the flaw, but rather finding that flaw adequately addressed in the answer choices. As soon as I start reading the often convoluted and lengthy answer choices I seem to lose sight of what I was originally looking for.

Hopefully more drilling will help and iron this out, but I've been doing absolutely abysmal thus far.

Yup, the answer choices are pretty much designed to do this to you. I find it helpful to remind myself what I'm looking for after each answer choice I read.

It kinda goes like this:

"[content of answer choice A], yeah but what about [what I was looking for]"

But you do also have to be open to there being more than one flaw, and more than one way to make it better.

[papercut]

Yeah the skimming is your problem.

I'm not familiar with the LSAT trainer, but I'm strongly against any sort of rushing or skimming of the RC passages. Try to do a 4.5-4 or 5-3.5 minute split between passage and questions.

You know how you can predict what the correct answer will look like from the stimulus on LR? Well on RC, you should try to predict which parts they might ask questions about.

At the very least you should become very familiar with the layout of the passage so if you have to, you can quickly look at the relevant parts of the passage for your question. But if you take your time and read slowly, taking in everything just as critically as you would an LR stim, you'll find that you don't have to look back at the passage very much at all.

I am absolutely going to try to allocate my time this way on my next RC section. I think I can use my slow, deliberate, and thorough reading style to my advantage--as long as I can focus on the right things during my initial read and fly through the questions quickly and confidently.

Your rules of thumb are very helpful. I understand that significant improvement on RC can come from basic pattern recognition: knowing where to focus our attention. But I've found that in the newer sections (especially the comparative passages) more weight is placed on knowledge of super-specific details (i.e. "Which of the following punctuation marks appears in Passage A but not in Passage B?"). I waste eons and eons scouring the passages to confirm these details -- usually just chasing ghosts. Maybe spending more time with the passages on the initial read will allow me to answer these questions in a reasonable amount of time.

Thanks for the tip!

Yeah slowing down will definitely help. Once you read through and make your notes on the passage/in the margins, these will serve as little road markers to help you find your way around the passage.

So, even if you don't remember if passage B mentioned barium, you'll know where it would probably show up if they did.

[cavalier2015]

a little behind schedule but i've got relative ordering, simple ordering, main conclusion, and sufficient assumption down. reviewing those all day today.

tomorrow: necessary assumption. (the Cambridge packet for this looks daunting!)

[churrochi]

I'm trying to think of ways to intensify my study schedule, as I'm currently unemployed and have a LOT of time on my hands to study. I'm also a retaker, if that counts for anything.

Here's what I'm doing so far:
Going through The LSAT Trainer's 8-week study schedule from 6/2-7/27. Supplementing any concepts I don't understand with PowerScore. Drills are included in the study schedule.
7/28-onward: 3PTs minimum a week, and on the days I'm not PTing and reviewing, drilling various Cambridge packets/sections of older tests and reviewing.

Suggestions? I want to take time to create a good understanding of how the various sections of the LSAT generally work because I don't think I did that the first time around (Diag: 154, PTing: 158-161, Actual: 151). It's also been almost a year since I studied (Did BP, but practically no review on my own time aside from some assigned HW), so I've forgotten quite a bit since then.