Top Law Schools

When do you guys suggest I begin doing the rest of the preptests? I have 61-72 untouched, but would hate to exhaust them early on....

.

Hmm looking at my schedule. Might be PTing after work tomorrow.

Any suggestions on which one to take? I have all of them, but am looking for a good starting point.

Question: How did you guys handle timing? I rarely have time for the last LG. I spend a substantial amount of time on the first game then give about equal time to 2 and 3, so that by the time I'm at game 4 all I have time for is the orientation question. I started LG at -18 consistently and now I'm at -9, but that's mainly because I can never get to the last game. Do I need to drill more? Do I need to force myself to move one? Any advice would be appreciated.

kbrizz wrote:Hmm looking at my schedule. Might be PTing after work tomorrow.

Any suggestions on which one to take? I have all of them, but am looking for a good starting point.

The general consensus from what I've seen is that later PTs are more difficult/employ some different question types than earlier ones, imo anything after #30 would be a good bet.

MadwomanintheAttic wrote:Question: How did you guys handle timing? I rarely have time for the last LG. I spend a substantial amount of time on the first game then give about equal time to 2 and 3, so that by the time I'm at game 4 all I have time for is the orientation question. I started LG at -18 consistently and now I'm at -9, but that's mainly because I can never get to the last game. Do I need to drill more? Do I need to force myself to move one? Any advice would be appreciated.

I've gotten to where I spend 6:30-7:30 per easy game/medium game leaving me 12-13 min for the hard game. I started off not able to finish the sections tho. I think it really comes down to drilling. I've done every game from the cambridhe packets so all the games from test 1-39. It just comes to practice.

I'm spending the next 6 hours of my life until I figure out RC. Voyagers guide brought it down a little, but not consistently enough to where Im comfortable. I'm gonna figure this shit out. There's gotta be some type of pattern in the questions asked or something. I'll let you guys know how it goes.

ilikebaseball wrote:I'm spending the next 6 hours of my life until I figure out RC. Voyagers guide brought it down a little, but not consistently enough to where Im comfortable. I'm gonna figure this shit out. There's gotta be some type of pattern in the questions asked or something. I'll let you guys know how it goes.

What helped me a lot was spending 4-4:30 minutes just on reading the passage.

I feel like its different from everyone. Like, if I was to ask "what is the best strategy?" I'd get 10 different answers. So right now, I'm throwin all the chips on the table and trying everything. I have 8 sections here with me of RC. This has gotta be unhealthy.

Valamar wrote:"Only those who appreciate these advances are scientists" structurally is "only A is B", "A is necessary for B", or "B---->A". It becomes clearer if you reword it as "the only people who are scientists are those who appreciate these advances", from which you can also deduce "people who do not appreciate these advances are not scientists", and thus "all scientists appreciate these technological advances".

On the other hand, if the prompt had read something like "the only people who appreciate these advances are scientists" or "only scientists appreciate these advances", that would be the reverse structurally: "only B is A", "B is necessary for A", or "A----->B". I haven't really studied formal logic too comprehensively so maybe someone else would be better able to provide proper technical terms, but that is the general gist of it.

Ah thank you. This definitely helps. Does this kind of logic come up much on the LSAT? It's a little more abstract or categorical than most conditional logic.

.

kbrizz wrote:Hmm looking at my schedule. Might be PTing after work tomorrow.

Any suggestions on which one to take? I have all of them, but am looking for a good starting point.

Which ones have you used for drilling (if any)?

guys, I've drilled LG a ton. I've done all the games in 1-39, but in LG sections I did this weekend ( I did 2) I got 15 correct on both, and the one I did previous to that I got 18 correct (the most I've ever gotten on an LG section).

I am not really sure what else to do. I'm going to continue re-doing games, but I think I noticed that when the timer is on for sections I don't spend as much time upfront as I probably should be. In blind review I usually only miss a few or none, so I know how to DO the games, but sometimes with the timer on I make some dumb mistakes or simply take too long figuring out things I should have done quicker.

If anything, I'm beginning to realize the importance of not just mass drilling but also reviewing how you react to unfamiliar things. Spending more time up front and playing with the rules more will most definitely be something I spend more time on in future sections.. back to drilling for the rest of the week until next weekend though.

On a better note the two LR sections I did I got 21 correct on both, and did a bunch of timed RC sections ranging from 18-24 correct, so I've improved a lot from getting 12 right on my diagnostic, lol.

Any advice on LG would be super-appreciated.

Louis1127 wrote:

kbrizz wrote:Hmm looking at my schedule. Might be PTing after work tomorrow.

Any suggestions on which one to take? I have all of them, but am looking for a good starting point.

Which ones have you used for drilling (if any)?

Only Cambridge 1-38 for LG.

ilikebaseball wrote:I feel like its different from everyone. Like, if I was to ask "what is the best strategy?" I'd get 10 different answers. So right now, I'm throwin all the chips on the table and trying everything. I have 8 sections here with me of RC. This has gotta be unhealthy.

That's really accurate. I don't know if you used the trainer, but IMO his section on RC is the most helpful. He doesn't try to pressure you to develop some system of notation, but rather suggests that you ask yourself a couple of questions as you read. I use that strategy, rarely if ever make a mark on the passage, and typically go around -3.

Okay apparently I really need some help with conditional logic.

I am having a hard time understanding why

A --> B/

is different from

A/ --> B .

I know this is a rookie question. Please bear in mind that I am embarrassed just asking this. I thought I had this down but I guess not.

BillPackets wrote:

ilikebaseball wrote:I feel like its different from everyone. Like, if I was to ask "what is the best strategy?" I'd get 10 different answers. So right now, I'm throwin all the chips on the table and trying everything. I have 8 sections here with me of RC. This has gotta be unhealthy.

That's really accurate. I don't know if you used the trainer, but IMO his section on RC is the most helpful. He doesn't try to pressure you to develop some system of notation, but rather suggests that you ask yourself a couple of questions as you read. I use that strategy, rarely if ever make a mark on the passage, and typically go around -3.

Reading through it right now. He basically tells you to ask yourself "Why did the author write this?" and what else?

kbrizz wrote:Okay apparently I really need some help with conditional logic.

I am having a hard time understanding why

A --> B/

is different from

A/ --> B .

I know this is a rookie question. Please bear in mind that I am embarrassed just asking this. I thought I had this down but I guess not.

From the rule A-->~B, you can only take the contrapositive, which is B-->~A.

Maybe it would help if you wrote it out?

All As are not B.

A
A
A
B
B
B

All Bs are not A.

Does that little illustration help?

kbrizz wrote:Okay apparently I really need some help with conditional logic.

I am having a hard time understanding why

A --> B/

is different from

A/ --> B .

I know this is a rookie question. Please bear in mind that I am embarrassed just asking this. I thought I had this down but I guess not.

Fact: If A occurs, then B cannot occur. - Ex: If Sally enters the contest, Anna will not enter.

Inference: If A does not occur, B could either occur or not occur - we don't have enough information to tell. - Ex: If Sally does not enter the contest, Anna could either enter or not.

ilikebaseball wrote:

BillPackets wrote:

ilikebaseball wrote:I feel like its different from everyone. Like, if I was to ask "what is the best strategy?" I'd get 10 different answers. So right now, I'm throwin all the chips on the table and trying everything. I have 8 sections here with me of RC. This has gotta be unhealthy.

That's really accurate. I don't know if you used the trainer, but IMO his section on RC is the most helpful. He doesn't try to pressure you to develop some system of notation, but rather suggests that you ask yourself a couple of questions as you read. I use that strategy, rarely if ever make a mark on the passage, and typically go around -3.

Reading through it right now. He basically tells you to ask yourself "Why did the author write this?" and what else?

Why did the author write this, how does this argument function within the overall structure of the passage...what's the purpose, etc.

What's your biggest problem with RC right now? Is it a certain passage type (like science), or reading for overall reasoning, or something else?

.

BillPackets wrote:

ilikebaseball wrote:

BillPackets wrote:

ilikebaseball wrote:I feel like its different from everyone. Like, if I was to ask "what is the best strategy?" I'd get 10 different answers. So right now, I'm throwin all the chips on the table and trying everything. I have 8 sections here with me of RC. This has gotta be unhealthy.

That's really accurate. I don't know if you used the trainer, but IMO his section on RC is the most helpful. He doesn't try to pressure you to develop some system of notation, but rather suggests that you ask yourself a couple of questions as you read. I use that strategy, rarely if ever make a mark on the passage, and typically go around -3.

Reading through it right now. He basically tells you to ask yourself "Why did the author write this?" and what else?

Why did the author write this, how does this argument function within the overall structure of the passage...what's the purpose, etc.

What's your biggest problem with RC right now? Is it a certain passage type (like science), or reading for overall reasoning, or something else?

Definitely reading for reasoning. Also, a lot of times, I'll read answer choices and they all sound similar to me. Sometimes I cant even eliminate one choice.

BillPackets wrote:

kbrizz wrote:Okay apparently I really need some help with conditional logic.

I am having a hard time understanding why

A --> B/

is different from

A/ --> B .

I know this is a rookie question. Please bear in mind that I am embarrassed just asking this. I thought I had this down but I guess not.

From the rule A-->~B, you can only take the contrapositive, which is B-->~A.

Maybe it would help if you wrote it out?

All As are not B.

A
A
A
B
B
B

All Bs are not A.

Does that little illustration help?

Yes, thanks!

blueberrycrumble wrote:

kbrizz wrote:Okay apparently I really need some help with conditional logic.

I am having a hard time understanding why

A --> B/

is different from

A/ --> B .

I know this is a rookie question. Please bear in mind that I am embarrassed just asking this. I thought I had this down but I guess not.

Fact: If A occurs, then B cannot occur. - Ex: If Sally enters the contest, Anna will not enter.

Inference: If A does not occur, B could either occur or not occur - we don't have enough information to tell. - Ex: If Sally does not enter the contest, Anna could either enter or not.

That's helpful, also! Thanks,

.