The Official September 2014 Study Group

[alpha kenny body]

I see little merit in purchasing the Cambridge packets for the sole purpose of drilling. Do not mistake my opinion, they are a great company and offer a valuable service to their respective market through other means. However, the company performed a duty that, anyone who is somewhat serious about this test could, assuming certain factors, make the effort to accomplish by: collecting the necessary preptests (the method of retrieval and repercussions are your own); saving to HD and/or printing them out for continuous use; locating the sticky within this board index thread that organizes the LR questions by type; the LSAT Blog webpage that offers the same complimentary service as the sticky thread; and finally, drilling all the of questions however you choose. Pertaining to LG and RC, if you are not signed up for a free account with 7Sage and Manhattan and their respective programs, you should do so immediately so you can utilize their descriptions and solutions (between the two companies) of virtually every problem for every single preptest. With respect to 7Sage, they will be your guide for organizing the LG problems you obtain, as well as to understand how the problems are designed and conquered. With respect to Manhattan, they will guide you through the description, organization, and solution to all of the LR and RC problems you will drill. Someone who isn't me, performed what would have been a credit card charge for the service and convenience, in under an hour for free.

You must hang out in drug forums, SWIM. You could do that. I bought the Cambridge packets. I have no regrets. I have them on PDF. I think it's worthwhile.

Drugs are bad news and ruin lives. I've never smoked a cigarette in my life and I had my first cup of coffee at 23.

[LinksDair818]

Checking in.
Just found out about TLS, Blind review, recently came across 7Sage (awesome), and the personal trainer.

So far in terms of materials this is what I have:
1)Blueprint course books (took it last fall)
2)LGB + LRB (pdf) older editions
3)LG drill packets by game type (pdf) up to PT40.
4)PT's 1-40

I have taken a Blueprint course, read both bibles and have been drilling S,N,S+, and W- through the Blueprint course books (Hw sections). Basically have been learning from older bibles and drilling them by section in the BP hw sections. I have been drilling LG timed in under 8:30 and 9:30 for games with 7 Q's with avg -0 or -1 per game.

I have not touched RC at all, however, I still have BP books to review and drill. I am considering buying MLSAT RC and maybe even the LR as well.
After reading the previous post about the LSAT trainer I am def considering purchasing that as well.

Any suggestions would be helpful.


Thanks to everyone that has posted such useful information thus far!!

The trainer is solid. So is MLSAT LR. You'll also need all the newer PTs...40-70 or whatever.

Also, review. Review everyday. Reviewing is more important than quantity. If you review well, then you'll drill well.

When reviewing what have you guys found most helpful? I have typed out a flaws only review page containing all the flaws and common forms in which they appear. Has anyone tried condensing material into review pages or are flash cards separated into different categories a better method? I'm curious as to the different methods of reviewing.

[mornincounselor]

Post removed.

[BillPackets]

Checking in.
Just found out about TLS, Blind review, recently came across 7Sage (awesome), and the personal trainer.

So far in terms of materials this is what I have:
1)Blueprint course books (took it last fall)
2)LGB + LRB (pdf) older editions
3)LG drill packets by game type (pdf) up to PT40.
4)PT's 1-40

I have taken a Blueprint course, read both bibles and have been drilling S,N,S+, and W- through the Blueprint course books (Hw sections). Basically have been learning from older bibles and drilling them by section in the BP hw sections. I have been drilling LG timed in under 8:30 and 9:30 for games with 7 Q's with avg -0 or -1 per game.

I have not touched RC at all, however, I still have BP books to review and drill. I am considering buying MLSAT RC and maybe even the LR as well.
After reading the previous post about the LSAT trainer I am def considering purchasing that as well.

Any suggestions would be helpful.


Thanks to everyone that has posted such useful information thus far!!

The trainer is solid. So is MLSAT LR. You'll also need all the newer PTs...40-70 or whatever.

Also, review. Review everyday. Reviewing is more important than quantity. If you review well, then you'll drill well.

When reviewing what have you guys found most helpful? I have typed out a flaws only review page containing all the flaws and common forms in which they appear. Has anyone tried condensing material into review pages or are flash cards separated into different categories a better method? I'm curious as to the different methods of reviewing.

Usually when we talk about reviewing, we aren't talking about reviewing information from chapters in LSAT books (although that can be helpful for certain things).

Typically when we talk about review, we are talking about blind reviewing while drilling, reviewing your misses questions, and reviewing the questions that you were not 100% certain on. You need to be 100% about the right answer, and 100% certain about why each answer choice is wrong.

Wrong answer choices provide a huge opportunity to learn. Did you not properly identify the conclusion? Did you misread something? Did you not understand an answer choice? Why did the wrong answer look attractive? Answering all of those questions is a tremendous help to figuring out the subtelities of each question type.

So, review everyday.

[n1o2c3a4c5h6e7t]

Checking in if I devide to forego this cycle and retake. It's so appealing!

[mornincounselor]

Post removed.

[isoto_]

This thread is moving faster than expected . Just finished reading the first chapter of The LSAT Trainer and now I want to multiply everything hahaha .

[urbanecologie]

Yeah, the thread really is picking up! I think more and more people are realizing that June isn't doable, so they're making their way to the September thread.

When I last checked in, I was dead set on starting the Trainer. Though I've gotten my copy in the mail, I've decided to complete the LG Bible first. I feel like I have a rudimentary understanding of every section but LG, so I want to finish the Bible before I start another comprehensive study program.

I'm liking the Bible a lot thus far. It's filled in a lot of gaps in my knowledge.

The crawl to 170 continues...

[BillPackets]

The crawl to 170 continues...

It's a fucking fight to death.

[mornincounselor]

Post removed.

[alpha kenny body]

Spent all day today battling my way through those 7 Sufficient Assumption questions I had marked. I think I have a moderately good handle on them now, but I will see in the coming days when I review clean copies of them if the inferences still are as obvious to me as they are at this moment.

Now onto a LG type. I'll go alphabetically and begin with Advanced Linear (Basic)

Mix your games up, because when you get to timed sections, it'll be easier as you're used to different types and diagrams when practicing.

[BillPackets]

Spent all day today battling my way through those 7 Sufficient Assumption questions I had marked. I think I have a moderately good handle on them now, but I will see in the coming days when I review clean copies of them if the inferences still are as obvious to me as they are at this moment.

Now onto a LG type. I'll go alphabetically and begin with Advanced Linear (Basic)

Mix your games up, because when you get to timed sections, it'll be easier as you're used to different types and diagrams when practicing.

Are you just starting with LGs?

[canuckofchicago]

Just finished with Simple and Relative ordering. Now on to In/Out grouping.
Using 7sage to review my work. I will officially sign up for the their classes for LR and RC.
My plan is once I finish with LG I am going to print out the Cambridge tests and mix all my questions and see where I stand.

If anyone can offer some insight into how much time I should spend on 3D ordering and more advanced games that would be great.

Thanks,
Richard

[BillPackets]

Just finished with Simple and Relative ordering. Now on to In/Out grouping.
Using 7sage to review my work. I will officially sign up for the their classes for LR and RC.
My plan is once I finish with LG I am going to print out the Cambridge tests and mix all my questions and see where I stand.

If anyone can offer some insight into how much time I should spend on 3D ordering and more advanced games that would be great.

Thanks,
Richard

I would honestly not recommend 7sage for LR.

JY is INVALUABLE for LG, but I really did not make much progress with his LR stuff. It was too mechanical for me.

Also, he once mentioned that the LSAC writers will often make A a very attractive answer choice, so be on the lookout for A. I basically stopped choosing A after that and it took me a minute to get out of that habit. Also I just improved.

Spend as long on LG as you need to.

[mornincounselor]

Post removed.

[BillPackets]

Spent all day today battling my way through those 7 Sufficient Assumption questions I had marked. I think I have a moderately good handle on them now, but I will see in the coming days when I review clean copies of them if the inferences still are as obvious to me as they are at this moment.

Now onto a LG type. I'll go alphabetically and begin with Advanced Linear (Basic)

Mix your games up, because when you get to timed sections, it'll be easier as you're used to different types and diagrams when practicing.

Are you just starting with LGs?

Well I did Basic Linear (Balanced) a while ago before I even did the Trainer. Mixing them up is interesting, but isn't the point to be doing the same type of game over and over again? I guess it's more about the similarity of the rules than the game type though, hmm.

Here's a question. If I'm really stuck on a game do I lose out tremendously by watching the 7Sage video before working the problem out on my own?

When you're first starting out, I think it's fine to only drill one question type and work your way through the packets. I think it's more beneficial than just jumping in willy nilly and doing a bunch of different game types. After you gain some proficiency then you should mix up the games.

I don't think you lose anything by doing that. I think it's more helpful to do that if you are totally stuck. Once you get better at games then you'll be able to see your errors without the videos. Until then, watch the videos. It's am extremely useful learning tool.

[imperspective]

...

[Toby Ziegler]

I have a quick question about balancing drilling with going through the books. I just started out by reading the LGB's first chapter. Should I then go ahead and go through all of the Simple Ordering Cambridge games?

Or should I only do like half of them and keep reading (or something similar)?

Also, I have the LRB and I'm getting the Trainer and all three MLSATs. Is there anything else I need? (I got the biggest Cambridge bundle.) And, when do you think I should start taking practice tests?

Thanks!!

P.S. I'm devoting at least four hours everyday from here on out.

Does the biggest Cambridge bundle come with all the new PTs? I only bought the LR/LG bundles through 38 so I don't know. But make sure you have all the new PTs. I am doing LR right now, and I am going through the entire LR bible and MLSAT LR then I will drill by mixing question types. But my plan as of now is to go through all the linear games then drill, then do grouping games and drill. So a 2 part study of logic games. But again I haven't gone into LG study so that approach may change once I get into it, but that's the plan now. HTH

[imperspective]

...

[imperspective]

...

[BillPackets]

Spent all day today battling my way through those 7 Sufficient Assumption questions I had marked. I think I have a moderately good handle on them now, but I will see in the coming days when I review clean copies of them if the inferences still are as obvious to me as they are at this moment.

Now onto a LG type. I'll go alphabetically and begin with Advanced Linear (Basic)

Mix your games up, because when you get to timed sections, it'll be easier as you're used to different types and diagrams when practicing.

Because you say this, I wonder if you think if I should just read the whole LGB cover-to-cover and then drill all game types (while I wait for my other books to arrive).

It's seriously OK to drill by LG type at first. I personally think it's preferable. No, it does not simulate how they will appear on the LSAT. But, it helps you learn how to do each game type well before trying to do 3-4 different game types at once.

You can do a chapter, drill some, then go to the next chapter.

Or, you can go through the whole book without drilling, then try and drill various game types all at once.

Try one and see which one you think helps you learn better.

Edit: I drilled by type at first. Now I mix them up. Gaining proficiency at LGs was a very frustrating process for me, and I cannot imagine mixing up game types right off the bat.

[imperspective]

...

[BillPackets]

Now onto a LG type. I'll go alphabetically and begin with Advanced Linear (Basic)[/quote]

Mix your games up, because when you get to timed sections, it'll be easier as you're used to different types and diagrams when practicing.[/quote]

Because you say this, I wonder if you think if I should just read the whole LGB cover-to-cover and then drill all game types (while I wait for my other books to arrive).[/quote]

It's seriously OK to drill by LG type at first. I personally think it's preferable. No, it does not simulate how they will appear on the LSAT. But, it helps you learn how to do each game type well before trying to do 3-4 different game types at once.

You can do a chapter, drill some, then go to the next chapter.

Or, you can go through the whole book without drilling, then try and drill various game types all at once.

Try one and see which one you think helps you learn better.

Edit: I drilled by type at first. Now I mix them up. Gaining proficiency at LGs was a very frustrating process for me, and I cannot imagine mixing up game types right off the bat.[/quote]

Thanks. Just to clarify, when you say "drill some" do you mean drill enough so I feel that I've absorbed the lesson? Or do I need to drill every game of that type before moving on? I guess I worry that if I do them all now they wont be as valuable later on.[/quote]

I would drill until you easily recognize how to set up the game from the stimulus. Make sure you can diagram efficiently. Then move on.

But, that might not work for you. You can try both ways. See which way is better.

I can tell you that games will never get old. You will do them, then you will forget them. You'll recognize the game, but not the answers. It will still be challenging.

Edit: epic quote fail.

[urbanecologie]

Now onto a LG type. I'll go alphabetically and begin with Advanced Linear (Basic)

Mix your games up, because when you get to timed sections, it'll be easier as you're used to different types and diagrams when practicing.[/quote]

Because you say this, I wonder if you think if I should just read the whole LGB cover-to-cover and then drill all game types (while I wait for my other books to arrive).[/quote]

It's seriously OK to drill by LG type at first. I personally think it's preferable. No, it does not simulate how they will appear on the LSAT. But, it helps you learn how to do each game type well before trying to do 3-4 different game types at once.

You can do a chapter, drill some, then go to the next chapter.

Or, you can go through the whole book without drilling, then try and drill various game types all at once.

Try one and see which one you think helps you learn better.

Edit: I drilled by type at first. Now I mix them up. Gaining proficiency at LGs was a very frustrating process for me, and I cannot imagine mixing up game types right off the bat.[/quote]

Thanks. Just to clarify, when you say "drill some" do you mean drill enough so I feel that I've absorbed the lesson? Or do I need to drill every game of that type before moving on? I guess I worry that if I do them all now they wont be as valuable later on.[/quote]

I would drill until you easily recognize how to set up the game from the stimulus. Make sure you can diagram efficiently. Then move on.

But, that might not work for you. You can try both ways. See which way is better.

I can tell you that games will never get old. You will do them, then you will forget them. You'll recognize the game, but not the answers. It will still be challenging.

Edit: epic quote fail.[/quote]

I second all of this. I'm reading the LG Bible right now. I take meticulous notes and drill with Kaplan Mastery after I finish each chapter. I find it helpful to dig into the games immediately.

Think of it as the high school method--learn a little bit, test your knowledge, learn a little bit, test your knowledge. If I don't feel that the drills are going well, then I go back and review my chapter notes.

[mornincounselor]

Post removed.