The Official September 2014 Study Group

User avatar
manillabay
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 9:50 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby manillabay » Sun Apr 13, 2014 12:17 pm

Anyone here going consistently 0 -1 on RC? I thought I was in the 2-4 (minus) range but after yesterday I got a -6 a -5 and some other not so hot ones. I seem to be all over the place. What did u guys do for RC?

User avatar
Toby Ziegler
Posts: 701
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 2:59 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Toby Ziegler » Sun Apr 13, 2014 10:04 pm

Hey, gang. Officially checking in.

I've been studying (very) lightly for about 4 months. My diagnostic was 154.
Materials:
PS LR & LG Bibles
MLSAT series
LSAT trainer
Cambridge drilling packets for LR & LG (tests 1-38)
LSAC's SuperPrep
Every prep test available

Excited to really get after it and hopefully put myself into contention for HYS.

Edit: I will likely be taking in June depending on how I feel for nothing more than a good trial run.
Last edited by Toby Ziegler on Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
BlueSamurai
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 9:18 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BlueSamurai » Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:27 pm

Checking In! In my last month of undergrad, and landed a full-time job after graduation, but am working part-time until October! Will be starting hardcore LSAT studying come May, but already have a subscription to 7sage and downloaded the bibles. Looking forward to suffering with y'all 8)

michellemarie
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 2:38 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby michellemarie » Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:36 am

Anyone is SoCal want to get together (to keep motivated)?
I will be retaking. Currently a 163 but aiming to be high 170s.

User avatar
toshiroh
Posts: 439
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:58 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby toshiroh » Tue Apr 15, 2014 10:32 am

Checking in :cry: :cry: :cry:

User avatar
mornincounselor
Posts: 1220
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 1:37 am

Post removed.

Postby mornincounselor » Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:06 am

Post removed.
Last edited by mornincounselor on Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Toby Ziegler
Posts: 701
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 2:59 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Toby Ziegler » Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:02 pm

mornincounselor wrote:Somehow after a few months of study I ended up PT'ing at 4 points under my current lowest score. This is a important point in my study I can either a) give up and admit it's all pointless or b) buck up and work harder.

PT 46 initial score: 153 RC -11; LR1 -6; LR2 -8; LG -8
Blind Review: 166: RC -4; LR1 -4; LR2 -4; LG -1

Drilling full timed sections from the first 20 Preptests until I feel better. No more slacking. One hundred percent commitment from here on out.

Great attitude, counselor. You have plenty of time to get where you want to. Have you drilled much?

User avatar
BillPackets
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BillPackets » Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:08 pm

Is anyone else using the Cambridge packets? I'm planning on trying to drill almost all questions from their drilling packets before doing any PTs.

Anyone else using that approach?

User avatar
Toby Ziegler
Posts: 701
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 2:59 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Toby Ziegler » Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:39 pm

BillPackets wrote:Is anyone else using the Cambridge packets? I'm planning on trying to drill almost all questions from their drilling packets before doing any PTs.

Anyone else using that approach?


I am, but I am only using the packets from prep tests 1-38. This is advisable so you can save the most recent material for full-length PT's.

User avatar
BillPackets
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BillPackets » Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:53 pm

Toby Ziegler wrote:
BillPackets wrote:Is anyone else using the Cambridge packets? I'm planning on trying to drill almost all questions from their drilling packets before doing any PTs.

Anyone else using that approach?


I am, but I am only using the packets from prep tests 1-38. This is advisable so you can save the most recent material for full-length PT's.


Right. When are you planning to start PTing?

User avatar
GauchoMarx
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 9:49 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby GauchoMarx » Wed Apr 16, 2014 12:06 am

Checking in!

Took my initial diagnostic PT (June 2007) a few weeks ago and scored a 168 (LG -2, LR1 -2, LR2 -4, RC -2).

Since then I have finished going through the PowerScore LG Bible and I'm currently working on the PS LR Bible while also drilling LG and LR question types that I have gone over in the Bible already using the Cambridge super bundle thingy. As for RC, I don't have any study materials other than the Cambridge drill packets as of now, but this may change. Is there a consensus among the TLS community on which RC study books are most effective?

User avatar
Toby Ziegler
Posts: 701
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 2:59 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Toby Ziegler » Wed Apr 16, 2014 1:53 am

BillPackets wrote:
Toby Ziegler wrote:
BillPackets wrote:Is anyone else using the Cambridge packets? I'm planning on trying to drill almost all questions from their drilling packets before doing any PTs.

Anyone else using that approach?


I am, but I am only using the packets from prep tests 1-38. This is advisable so you can save the most recent material for full-length PT's.


Right. When are you planning to start PTing?

The plan is to begin when I am through with drilling. That seems axiomatic, but I don't really know. I hope that I can get through LR by the end of May, then finish up LG (I only have grouping games left to drill) by the end of June. Then do whatever it is you do for RC in July and PT August and September with the thought that 2 months of PT'ing would allow enough flex time to go back to drilling problem areas if necessary.

User avatar
Toby Ziegler
Posts: 701
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 2:59 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Toby Ziegler » Wed Apr 16, 2014 1:58 am

GauchoMarx wrote:Checking in!

Took my initial diagnostic PT (June 2007) a few weeks ago and scored a 168 (LG -2, LR1 -2, LR2 -4, RC -2).

Since then I have finished going through the PowerScore LG Bible and I'm currently working on the PS LR Bible while also drilling LG and LR question types that I have gone over in the Bible already using the Cambridge super bundle thingy. As for RC, I don't have any study materials other than the Cambridge drill packets as of now, but this may change. Is there a consensus among the TLS community on which RC study books are most effective?

Great initial diagnostic. Was that under strict timed conditions? If so, bravo.
As for RC I am also interested in this, I have the Manhatten LSAT RC guide and a ton of dense articles, but it seems there is no definitive answer on this, to my knowledge at least.

User avatar
GauchoMarx
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 9:49 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby GauchoMarx » Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:53 am

Toby Ziegler wrote:
GauchoMarx wrote:Checking in!

Took my initial diagnostic PT (June 2007) a few weeks ago and scored a 168 (LG -2, LR1 -2, LR2 -4, RC -2).

Since then I have finished going through the PowerScore LG Bible and I'm currently working on the PS LR Bible while also drilling LG and LR question types that I have gone over in the Bible already using the Cambridge super bundle thingy. As for RC, I don't have any study materials other than the Cambridge drill packets as of now, but this may change. Is there a consensus among the TLS community on which RC study books are most effective?

Great initial diagnostic. Was that under strict timed conditions? If so, bravo.
As for RC I am also interested in this, I have the Manhatten LSAT RC guide and a ton of dense articles, but it seems there is no definitive answer on this, to my knowledge at least.


Yes, I took it under timed conditions using the 7sage proctor, though it was only a 4-section test.

I read a lot of dense texts for my UG classes so I've recently been doing these readings with a particular focus on speed and retention in the hopes that it will lead to good things for me on RC. I like that I got -2 on my diagnostic PT, but from reading these threads I understand that RC scores can fluctuate so I'll reassess my RC needs once I start drilling it and have more PTs under my belt.

User avatar
mornincounselor
Posts: 1220
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 1:37 am

Post removed.

Postby mornincounselor » Wed Apr 16, 2014 10:52 am

Post removed.
Last edited by mornincounselor on Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Toby Ziegler
Posts: 701
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 2:59 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Toby Ziegler » Wed Apr 16, 2014 12:55 pm

GauchoMarx wrote:
Toby Ziegler wrote:
GauchoMarx wrote:Checking in!

Took my initial diagnostic PT (June 2007) a few weeks ago and scored a 168 (LG -2, LR1 -2, LR2 -4, RC -2).

Since then I have finished going through the PowerScore LG Bible and I'm currently working on the PS LR Bible while also drilling LG and LR question types that I have gone over in the Bible already using the Cambridge super bundle thingy. As for RC, I don't have any study materials other than the Cambridge drill packets as of now, but this may change. Is there a consensus among the TLS community on which RC study books are most effective?

Great initial diagnostic. Was that under strict timed conditions? If so, bravo.
As for RC I am also interested in this, I have the Manhatten LSAT RC guide and a ton of dense articles, but it seems there is no definitive answer on this, to my knowledge at least.


Yes, I took it under timed conditions using the 7sage proctor, though it was only a 4-section test.

I read a lot of dense texts for my UG classes so I've recently been doing these readings with a particular focus on speed and retention in the hopes that it will lead to good things for me on RC. I like that I got -2 on my diagnostic PT, but from reading these threads I understand that RC scores can fluctuate so I'll reassess my RC needs once I start drilling it and have more PTs under my belt.


Well you're in a great place. Your initial diagnostic is higher than ~97% of test takers final score. I haven't found that the reading of intense texts has been much help, it may be for you, but it hasn't for me. I am a philosophy major and none of the RC passages I've encountered have been as dense as some of the texts we have read for my major (Kant, Nietsche, Schopenhauer, etc.). I've found that the questions the LSAT asks about the passages are far different than what I am accustom to looking for -- there certainly have been exemptions, though.

Let me know your strategy for RC when you really nail it down. It sure sounds like you have a great natural ability for the test.

User avatar
Toby Ziegler
Posts: 701
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 2:59 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Toby Ziegler » Wed Apr 16, 2014 12:58 pm

mornincounselor wrote:
Toby Ziegler wrote:
mornincounselor wrote:Somehow after a few months of study I ended up PT'ing at 4 points under my current lowest score. This is a important point in my study I can either a) give up and admit it's all pointless or b) buck up and work harder.

PT 46 initial score: 153 RC -11; LR1 -6; LR2 -8; LG -8
Blind Review: 166: RC -4; LR1 -4; LR2 -4; LG -1

Drilling full timed sections from the first 20 Preptests until I feel better. No more slacking. One hundred percent commitment from here on out.

Great attitude, counselor. You have plenty of time to get where you want to. Have you drilled much?


The only drilling I've done are the drills in the first 400 pages of the trainer and some last year from the bibles. Now I do have all the tests in pdf form but not the Cambridge packets so I guess I'm going to have to manually find and separate all question types before I can drill by question type and difficulty.

P.S. this damn ten CD's consisting of both new and used music (pt31g2) is likely the hardest game I've encountered yet. If they at least told me how many of them were on sale it would be so much easier, but alas, no such luck.

Haha yeah that game is a tough one. I hate struggling with a game and then looking it up on 7Sage only to feel like an idiot when he walks you through it so simply.

I would highly rccomend getting the games separated out and drilling them that way, at least from the earlier tests. This is he only way I can account for my growth thus far. It's been really beneficial.

User avatar
GauchoMarx
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 9:49 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby GauchoMarx » Wed Apr 16, 2014 1:39 pm

Toby Ziegler wrote:
Well you're in a great place. Your initial diagnostic is higher than ~97% of test takers final score. I haven't found that the reading of intense texts has been much help, it may be for you, but it hasn't for me. I am a philosophy major and none of the RC passages I've encountered have been as dense as some of the texts we have read for my major (Kant, Nietsche, Schopenhauer, etc.). I've found that the questions the LSAT asks about the passages are far different than what I am accustom to looking for -- there certainly have been exemptions, though.

Let me know your strategy for RC when you really nail it down. It sure sounds like you have a great natural ability for the test.


Hey, I'm a phil major too (in fact, I should be writing a philosophy essay right now but I'm shirking those obligations to browse these forums).

I plan on using RC for my 5th section when I start taking PTs so as to get more exposure to it since I don't have any study books for that section as I do with LG and LR. Another question: is it generally advised to start taking PTs only once you've drilled all types of LGs and LR question types thoroughly?

User avatar
Toby Ziegler
Posts: 701
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 2:59 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Toby Ziegler » Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:34 pm

GauchoMarx wrote:
Toby Ziegler wrote:
Well you're in a great place. Your initial diagnostic is higher than ~97% of test takers final score. I haven't found that the reading of intense texts has been much help, it may be for you, but it hasn't for me. I am a philosophy major and none of the RC passages I've encountered have been as dense as some of the texts we have read for my major (Kant, Nietsche, Schopenhauer, etc.). I've found that the questions the LSAT asks about the passages are far different than what I am accustom to looking for -- there certainly have been exemptions, though.

Let me know your strategy for RC when you really nail it down. It sure sounds like you have a great natural ability for the test.


Hey, I'm a phil major too (in fact, I should be writing a philosophy essay right now but I'm shirking those obligations to browse these forums).

I plan on using RC for my 5th section when I start taking PTs so as to get more exposure to it since I don't have any study books for that section as I do with LG and LR. Another question: is it generally advised to start taking PTs only once you've drilled all types of LGs and LR question types thoroughly?


I don't envy you, I just finished my honors thesis last week and I've never felt more free. Ha
I don't know if it's an absolute thou shalt not take PT's before you've finished drilling. I am going to drill LG & LR until I am very confident, then begin taking PT's and re-drill any problem areas. Does that make sense?

I like your 5th section begin RC, I am planning to do the same thing. I had a buddy rest in December and he had a RC section as experimental (something he didn't plan for) and it killed him. So if we can get our endurance up and be ready for that to happen, all the while getting more RC practice, we should be set.
Last edited by Toby Ziegler on Mon Apr 21, 2014 10:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.

emilsinclair9
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:01 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby emilsinclair9 » Wed Apr 16, 2014 5:44 pm

mornincounselor wrote:Somehow after a few months of study I ended up PT'ing at 4 points under my current lowest score. This is a important point in my study I can either a) give up and admit it's all pointless or b) buck up and work harder.

PT 46 initial score: 153 RC -11; LR1 -6; LR2 -8; LG -8
Blind Review: 166: RC -4; LR1 -4; LR2 -4; LG -1

Drilling full timed sections from the first 20 Preptests until I feel better. No more slacking. One hundred percent commitment from here on out.



Morning Counselor, I feel like you're not reviewing enough. It's natural to want to feel like you should be going faster through everything, but that isn't the case. As an example, I actually spent a good 2 weeks on just BASIC LINEAR games in the logic games bible. As in, I read through, did the exercises, then did the 5 games, 1 by 1. After each game, I reviewed heavily (sometimes literally up to 2-3 hours per game). The reason it takes me that long to review is because I can break down what I'm doing that way (initially I was making hypos for nearly every MC option aside from the first 1-2 q's). Once I realized that, I knew the key to improving substantially was to first identify the crux of the game, and then to use that information to reasonably deduce what options could not work. When I first approached the MC options on each question, I used to immediately think about going crazy making quick hypos. But this is a time-consuming, flawed strategy. Instead, review heavily the answer explanations for each question in the LG Bible. If you do that, you'll understand the logic behind "seeing/deducing" what MC options immediately cannot be true. To test myself at the end of basic linear, I made it my goal to do all 5 games in under 35 minutes with perfect accuracy, which I did accomplish. At that point, I knew I was ready to move onto drilling basic games. I also knew I could tack on Advanced Linear in the bible. Slow progression - dutiful progression is key. Perfect practice makes perfect.

emilsinclair9
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:01 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby emilsinclair9 » Wed Apr 16, 2014 5:53 pm

GauchoMarx wrote:Checking in!

Took my initial diagnostic PT (June 2007) a few weeks ago and scored a 168 (LG -2, LR1 -2, LR2 -4, RC -2).

Since then I have finished going through the PowerScore LG Bible and I'm currently working on the PS LR Bible while also drilling LG and LR question types that I have gone over in the Bible already using the Cambridge super bundle thingy. As for RC, I don't have any study materials other than the Cambridge drill packets as of now, but this may change. Is there a consensus among the TLS community on which RC study books are most effective?



Not to blatantly call you out, but how did you score a -2 in LG on your diagnostic? I know philosophy majors consistently score well on the LSAT, but come on, man, -2 on LG under timed conditions on your diagnostic? No offense, but that seems a bit farfetched. Unless, of course, you had studied Games a lot prior to your diagnostic; I don't want to assume you went in entirely cold.

** I'll also add that the June 2007 PT is known for being one of the hardest PT's with one of the worst curves.

User avatar
GauchoMarx
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 9:49 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby GauchoMarx » Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:23 pm

emilsinclair9 wrote:
GauchoMarx wrote:Checking in!

Took my initial diagnostic PT (June 2007) a few weeks ago and scored a 168 (LG -2, LR1 -2, LR2 -4, RC -2).

Since then I have finished going through the PowerScore LG Bible and I'm currently working on the PS LR Bible while also drilling LG and LR question types that I have gone over in the Bible already using the Cambridge super bundle thingy. As for RC, I don't have any study materials other than the Cambridge drill packets as of now, but this may change. Is there a consensus among the TLS community on which RC study books are most effective?



Not to blatantly call you out, but how did you score a -2 in LG on your diagnostic? I know philosophy majors consistently score well on the LSAT, but come on, man, -2 on LG under timed conditions on your diagnostic? No offense, but that seems a bit farfetched. Unless, of course, you had studied Games a lot prior to your diagnostic; I don't want to assume you went in entirely cold.

** I'll also add that the June 2007 PT is known for being one of the hardest PT's with one of the worst curves.


"Not to blatantly call you out, but..." *proceeds to blatantly call me out*

Haha you're right, though, I had previous exposure to games through logic courses and from when some of my classmates were studying for the test. I had an understanding of some of the diagramming concepts going in, so to say that I took the test completely cold would be false. Also, I've heard that the June 2007 has a bad curve from multiple people now, what exactly is meant by that? -10 total gave me a 168, would a -10 on other tests produce a higher score?

User avatar
Toby Ziegler
Posts: 701
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 2:59 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Toby Ziegler » Wed Apr 16, 2014 9:39 pm

GauchoMarx wrote:
emilsinclair9 wrote:
GauchoMarx wrote:Checking in!

Took my initial diagnostic PT (June 2007) a few weeks ago and scored a 168 (LG -2, LR1 -2, LR2 -4, RC -2).

Since then I have finished going through the PowerScore LG Bible and I'm currently working on the PS LR Bible while also drilling LG and LR question types that I have gone over in the Bible already using the Cambridge super bundle thingy. As for RC, I don't have any study materials other than the Cambridge drill packets as of now, but this may change. Is there a consensus among the TLS community on which RC study books are most effective?



Not to blatantly call you out, but how did you score a -2 in LG on your diagnostic? I know philosophy majors consistently score well on the LSAT, but come on, man, -2 on LG under timed conditions on your diagnostic? No offense, but that seems a bit farfetched. Unless, of course, you had studied Games a lot prior to your diagnostic; I don't want to assume you went in entirely cold.

** I'll also add that the June 2007 PT is known for being one of the hardest PT's with one of the worst curves.


"Not to blatantly call you out, but..." *proceeds to blatantly call me out*


Exactly what I was thinking. Haha

Yeah most test's curve gives you a 170 from about -10 to -14

So that June 2007 was pretty rough. I guess they thought it was easy..

User avatar
Toby Ziegler
Posts: 701
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 2:59 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby Toby Ziegler » Wed Apr 16, 2014 10:03 pm

Anyways. I am studying LR from the PS bible and the MLSAT LR guide. I am going to start drilling types after I am done with their corresponding sections. Where is everybody else at?

Also, for those who have been using two guides at once: have you found an effective way to mesh the two approaches? For instance, the Cambridge packets divide the sections a bit different than the bible and MLSAT. So I study, say, the must-be-true questions from the bible then I study Manhatten and the issue I run into is the fact that the chapters aren't exactly uniform - Manhatten tends to spread the info (for one Cambridge section) over a few chapters. Have you found anything that works well?

I hope that makes sense.

User avatar
BillPackets
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: The Official September 2014 Study Group

Postby BillPackets » Wed Apr 16, 2014 10:21 pm

Toby Ziegler wrote:Anyways. I am studying LR from the PS bible and the MLSAT LR guide. I am going to start drilling types after I am done with their corresponding sections. Where is everybody else at?

Also, for those who have been using two guides at once: have you found an effective way to mesh the two approaches? For instance, the Cambridge packets divide the sections a bit different than the bible and MLSAT. So I study, say, the must-be-true questions from the bible then I study Manhatten and the issue I run into is the fact that the chapters aren't exactly uniform - Manhatten tends to spread the info (for one Cambridge section) over a few chapters. Have you found anything that works well?

I hope that makes sense.


Yeah games are like that too. Cambridge has them divided up a little differently than 7sage or powerscore. You just gotta go with the flow. Usually it helps me realize that games/questions can be approached in more than one way.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: PantoroB and 7 guests